Who's holding WW planners accountable, Princeton Packet, Guest Opinion May 4, 2007
Bypass is dead, keep it that way, Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor April 28, 2006
Millstone Bypass rears its ugly head, Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor April 7, 2006
Comments at or after DEIS Hearing
Preserve the habitat that lures the eagle, Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor January 31, 2003
Eagle Perch Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor January 14, 2003
Cumulative impacts must be considered Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor January 10, 2003
Eagles were probably stopping by for a meal Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor January 7, 2003
Kingston plan sets traffic priorities Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor January 7, 2003
Improve safety for pedestrians, bikers Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor December 31, 2002
Make our roadways safer for pedestrians, Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor December 27, 2002
Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association Letter to NJDOT Bureau of Environmental Services, October 10, 2002
Is the Roundtable going in a circle? letter from members of the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition and the public, sent to area newspapers, the DOT, the governor and other state elected officials
Comments made after In-progress Review for the EIS September 30, 2002
Central Jersey Sierra Club
Paula McGuire
Olav Redi
Martha Redi
Sandra Shapiro
Karyn ,Jay, Lauren Milner
Letter in reference to Section 106 Process, Assessing Historic Properties
from Central Jersey Sierra Club, September 25, 2002, to Anthony Sabidussi, NJDOT
from Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust, September 25, 2002, to Anthony Sabidussi, NJDOT
Response from Anthony B. Sabidussi, October 31, 2002
from Sandra Shapiro, September 25, 2002, to Anthony Sabadussi, NJDOT
Response from Anthony B. Sabidussi, October 31, 2002
Weak ordinance imperils trees, Princeton Packet, Letters to Editor September 3, 2002
Council challenged to find middle path, Princeton Packet, January 29, 2002
Bring open minds to bypass process, Princeton Packet, January 22, 2002 and Trenton Times, January 28, 2002
More roads bring more congestion, Trenton Times, January 14, 2002
Keeping the bypass issue in perspective, Trenton Times, January 20, 2002, letter in response to Trenton Times article, January 8, 2002
Urban environment needs a "central park", January 4, 2002
To Governor DiFrancesco and Commissioner Weinstein re Scoping Forum November 15, 2001
Web site filled with Chat Rage, October 30, 2001
Princeton University's Proposal to Buy Sarnoff Land October 17, 2001
Preserve wilderness in midst of sprawl June 19, 2001
Letter to Delaware Valley Planning Commission ( about widening of Route 571) June 18, 2001
Master Plan: Other Options, May 11, 2001
Letter to Representative Rush Holt, March 13, 2001
Letter from Commissioner Weinstein February 9, 2001
To Commissioner James Weinstein from Princeton Mayors, February 1, 2001
RE: Environmental Impact Statement for the Millstone Bypass Project
from TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, N.J. and BOROUGH OF PRINCETON, N. J., December 15, 2000
To Governor Whitman, Fed. Hwy Admin., Commissioner Weinstien, from Millstone Bypass Alert! Coalition, November 20, 2000
To Governor Whitman, from Tri-State Transportation Campaign, November 15, 2000
To Members of the West Windsor Planning Board, February 16, 2000
Letter sent to Commissioner Weinstein (by more than a thousand people)
Individual Letter to Commissioner Weinstein
Letter of Congratulations and Support from Senator Frank Lautenberg, November 11, 2000
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda Letters
05/04/2007
Who's holding WW planners accountable?
Paula McGuireOne of the topics that has not received enough attention in all the discussion of the Transit Village in West Windsor is accountability by the planners.
Not long ago the Penns Neck Roundtable spent more than two years discussing the traffic problems of the area. The Roundtable was led by Rutgers University and was made up of town and county representatives, NJ and Federal DOT officials, and interested organizations and citizen groups. In the end, a vote was taken on various suggested solutions, and a consensus was reached. Finally, a federal Environmental Impact Statement was issued offering an evaluation of the process.
To my astonishment, there has been hardly a word mentioned about the Penns Neck EIS that was received with so much enthusiasm and agreement. Does such a serious and public process simply fade away with no responsible attention from our public officials, such as the mayor and the council members?
Where is the all-important Vaughn Drive connector between Washington Road and Alexander Road that was intended to ease traffic on Washington Road?
Why is there no mention of the cut and cover tunneling of Route 1 under Washington Road? Or of the improvements to Route 1, including an overpass at Harrison Street and frontage roads on either side?
And why is there still mention of a road (the route of the former so-called Millstone Bypass) going through the Sarnoff property, when such a road was deemed environmentally unsuitable?
The accepted improvements registered the overall concerns of an area reaching a five-mile radius around Penns Neck and should be included in the planning now.
Can Robert Hillier simply rewrite the conclusions of so many dedicated citizens and officials with a plan that ignores or changes some of the basic ideas of the Penns Neck plan? If this is possible, then West Windsor Township residents should have serious doubts that their wishes will be respected in whatever future plans are decided on for a transit village.
Some formal statement of responsibility, with checkpoints at different stages of whatever development occurs, must be signed by the mayor, the council members, and the planner, committing whoever is in charge of that development in the future to abide by the decisions made at present or modified at some point with a vote by the citizens of the community as a whole.
Without a document of this sort, the township opens itself up to the whims of a few rather than the will of the many.
Paula McGuire is a resident of West Windsor.
Bypass is dead, keep it that way
To the editor:
In its plans to redevelop the Princeton Junction area, West Windsor clings to the concept of a road through the Sarnoff property along the Millstone River.
This is the same roadway that the state Department of Transportation rejected. After over two years of research and public input for the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement, the DOT determined that the environmental, archaeological and historic impacts of the road far outweighed the minimal traffic abatement the road might offer.
While the EIS concludes only that the road cannot be built with federal funds, one would be unwise to assume that the path is clear for West Windsor to build the road. Many of the same impediments that stopped the DOT remain to confound West Windsor and Sarnoff.
First, there is now documented evidence for nesting New Jersey-threatened owls, as well as evidence of an endangered fish and mussel (see the Final EIS Executive Summary and Appendices). The state Department of Environmental Protection required the DOT to study the area further; it will require West Windsor to do the same. Since the release of the EIS, bald eagles have been documented to be nesting and breeding along Lake Carnegie. The Millstone River along Sarnoff's property is well within the bald eagle's foraging range, and any damage done to the river could impact the endangered bird's feeding and nesting habitat.
Second, West Windsor and Sarnoff would have to contend with the removal of toxic waste generated by Sarnoff years ago. Both are willing, unfortunately, to let the toxins remain where they are now, but should they decide to build a road, both would be saddled with cleanup costs and the potential to release the toxins into the region's drinking water.
The third impediment to construction of a road through Sarnoff is financial. With the consideration of the Millstone Bypass was the opportunity for the DOT and the Federal Highway Administration to give West Windsor and Sarnoff a free road. Now that both agencies have panned the idea, West Windsor and Sarnoff must foot the bill. Environmental and public-health reasons aside, it is the cost of the road that will be the largest deterrent to the resurrection of the Millstone Bypass.
The Sierra Club strongly favors redevelopment over new development, as long as such construction is not harmful to the environment or to public health. West Windsor's plan to revitalize the Princeton Junction train station area could result in a more environmentally friendly way of life for its residents. But to destroy the Millstone River and its banks in the process is just plain wrong.
The Sierra Club, along with other community groups, spent several years working on the EIS. We agreed upon a solution that, while not perfect, was acceptable to everyone. Should West Windsor attempt to revive the stretch of road that caused so much commotion a few years ago, the Sierra Club and its allies will be ready once again to oppose it.
Laura Lynch
Conservation Chair
Central Jersey Group and New Jersey Chapter
Sierra Club
Lumar Road
Lawrence
Millstone Bypass rears its ugly head
To the editor:
West Windsor Township has just issued a redevelopment Request for Qualifications. This has been sent to planners who might be interested in designing the Princeton Junction redevelopment zone. The RFQ contains the following paragraph:
"Millstone Bypass: This proposal as West Windsor conceives of it would provide additional east-west circulation, bypassing the Penns Neck area of the Township with a new two lane roadway starting at the railroad bridge at the base of Washington Road, traveling to the north side of the Sarnoff site, crossing Route 1 just south of Harrison Street."
Nowhere in the document is there an acknowledgment of the December 2004 Penns Neck Area Final Environmental Impact Statement, which denied federal funds for a road through the northern part of the Sarnoff property. The RFQ does not mention the FEIS preferred alignment for the roads in Penns Neck, including Washington Road going over a depressed Route 1 with frontage roads alongside the highway.
The FEIS found that there were major impediments, both archeological and environmental (runoff from a road into the Millstone River; disturbance of threatened species; as well as the concern that disturbing the contaminated soil of the Sarnoff property could cause the TCE, chlorinated hydrocarbons, to migrate to the Millstone, a source of drinking water), to building a roadway through the Sarnoff property. Studies showed that an east side connector road (i.e., the road through the Sarnoff property) would induce more traffic into what is proposed to be downtown West Windsor.
Some West Windsor residents and officials have steadfastly stuck to the original plan for a bypass road despite years of open roundtable discussions and studies. While West Windsor needs and wants a downtown, it cannot operate in isolation, deciding what is best for the region without input from the rest of the region.
The relocation of the University Medical Center at Princeton to Plainsboro will require the completion of all of the elements of the FEIS — including an overpass at a reconfigured Harrison Street, depressed Route 1, frontage roads and the Vaughn Drive connector road.
The impact of traffic to the entire region from the redevelopment zone and from a relocated hospital cannot be overstated.
Sandra Shapiro
Wycombe Way
West Windsor
Preserve the habitat that lures the eagle
Following is the complete text of the letter, later edited for the Princeton Packet:
To the editor:
January 24, 2003
Something is different in Princeton when friends call me early on a frigid morning to announce that they are going to the Towpath to look for the eagle. I was bound for Plainsboro Preserve, or would have joined them. On my trek, I pondered that I do not understand the controversy hereabouts concerning whether or not the American Bald Eagle, -- which reputable observers are reporting in and/or near Lake Carnegie --, nests hereabouts.
It no longer matters, in the pro and am worlds of birding, whether an eagle or an osprey (whom I just saw perched in the sentinel tree across the canal from my bedroom window. Ospreys and eagles require the same habitat) is resident / nesting or passing through. Migration may be more important, as it takes place twice each year. (For most birds, nesting is a once-a-year phenomenon.) We do not dismiss NJ tourists, nor travelers on Turnpike or Parkway, because they are only passing through. Face it: these 'migrants' bring significant dollars to our state.Why discriminate between birds who nest and birds who visit? Princeton retains, so far, unique features demanded by our nation's symbol, as well as the priceless osprey (often called fish hawk or fish eagle); as well as stately great blue and delicate green heron, which I often see while kayaking north or south from Alexander. Nothing should be allowed to impinge upon the features that lure them.
In one of the two best-selling David Sibley volumes, (Guide to Bird Life and Behavior), eagles and hawks are photographed together on p. 213, under HAWKS AND THEIR ALLIES. "The two eagles are large, bulky, and superficially similar, although distantly related to one another; the Bald Eagle is a member of the fish-eagle group. The Osprey, sometimes placed in its own family, is a distinctive fish-eating species." On page 215, under Food, Foraging, and Flight: "Other species are very specialized. Ospreys feed almost entirely on fish, and have feet that are well adapted for grasping slippery, wet prey... Eagles and Ospreys hunt both from perches and from high in the air, taking prey in spectacular dives. The Osprey hunts fish by hovering over water and plunging in, head- and feet-first." "Many species employ a steep dive, known as a 'stoop', to surprise prey."What this implies is that they need not only those fish, but also mature trees (TALL ones) from which to stoop. "Ospreys, eagles and kites also nest in trees, although Ospreys are quite versatile and will use a variety of tall structures... Eagles may also nest on cliffs." "Eagles build huge nests that may grow to weigh hundreds of pounds, the result of thousands of deliveries of woody nesting material over the years." This also implies that eagles require venerable trees that are not only tall, but sturdy. In other words, ploys like Princeton University's planting a few adolescent saplings in exchange for the 1000+ recently cut down for graduate structures, will not suffice in terms of what eagles need.
I don't know which of my editors exclaimed to me last year, "Carolyn, nature is hot!" But I use that surprising phrase often, esp. in my slide presentations. Also in letters to legislators, -- especially our stubborn, destructive president -- , on protecting the environment. I tell them all that Princeton media have been 'exceeding generous' with space for words and photographs of nature. I point out that this means that demanding readers have become more and more insistent upon nature's being there for their restoration.
Although I 'stalk' the winged creatures first for the thrill of encountering wildness, and then for stunning beauty, there is more to birds than beauty. Sheila Lego -- of New Jersey Audubon at Cape May Bird Observatory, advises me that New Jersey is enormously enriched each year by residents and visitors, spending not only on guided tours and seminars, but also on goods and service, for wildlife watching. In our state, birding has surpassed hunting and fishing in New Jersey!!!!! $1.24 billion. I asked if she meant nationwide. She said, "No, that's New Jersey."
The day before I read of the eagle of Lake Carnegie, I had studied an imposing very flat-flying dark shape move determinedly north from my Alexander Street window. It rode the air as if on an invisible surfboard. Too early for sufficient light, I could not make out a white head nor the golden feet I know and welcome upon our nation's symbol. It did not fly in a dihedral (V) as do our many vultures. In fact, that stately bird never flapped as I watched it out of sight, -- yes, toward Lake Carnegie.I've been treated to bald eagles nearby, -- on the Bordentown Bluff in autumn, and just north of Goshen, NJ, on Route 47, also in fall. I've also watched Goldens (eagles) at 'The Brig'/Forsythe Wildlife Refuge, often in Cape May, occasionally on Hawk Mountain. Nothing else flies with the steady, almost motionless power and distance of eagles.
So, no, I cannot absolutely say I saw the eagle of Lake Carnegie. I didn't even know anyone was seeing one. But I also didn't see what else it could have been. And meanwhile, it is essential on every front to preserve habitat that lures eagles.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Foote Edelmann
West Windsor
To the Editor:
My email of 10/31/02 was mentioned in your wonderful article regarding the Eagles at Lake Carnegie. Here is my original email that Mr. Hollister received:
For the past year I have been observing what appeared to be several immature eagles along the towpath at Lake Carnegie. This morning at 11:30 I observed a PAIR OF BALD EAGLES between Route 27 and Lake Carnegie. I was able to look at one of the eagles very closely and know it was a BALD EAGLE. This area is their nesting area!
How long has it taken nature to bring these Eagles back to our area? And how much build-out of their habitat will they tolerate before moving on?
The Penns Neck/Millstone Bypass project will directly effect the area these Eagles (along with the fabulous long-necked Cormorants) live in. It seems obscene to destroy this very prized bit of real estate - especially since the NJ DOT even suggested in its most recent report that a NO COST change to the traffic patterns might eliminate the traffic problems at Route 1. It is unconscionable that we would even consider a multi-million dollar project like this one without first trying some (or all) the No-Build Alternatives listed in the EIS.
Karyn Milner
Princeton, NJ
Cumulative impacts must be considered
To the Editor:
The report, "Potential Impacts to the Natural Environment," recently presented to the Roundtable for the Penns Neck Area EIS missed an essential point. If an east-side connector road is built through the Sarnoff property, then the Sarnoff Corporation will be able to go ahead with its complete General Development Plan (GDP), as provisionally approved by the West Windsor Planning Board.
The Sarnoff GDP would include many new buildings with parking spaces as well as a conference center and hotel with additional parking spaces, all providing massive impermeable cover on many additional acres. Thus, the consequences of a road through the Sarnoff property would mean a far greater impact to the environment than is noted in the numbers presented for the road alone.
If the connector road is not built (the wording of the Planning Board approval says "the Millstone Bypass or its functional equivalent"), then Sarnoff would be restricted to rebuilding and somewhat expanding only the existing building.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which the Roundtable is following, requires that induced, secondary and cumulative development be examined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). According to the Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute of Rutgers University, the team conducting the Roundtable, this information will be presented to the Roundtable at some future time, when potential cumulative impacts are presented. We are anxious to see these impacts. The wetlands, wildlife habitat, water and air quality of the region hang in the balance.
From West Windsor:
Charlie Ascher
Mary Ascher
Paula McGuire
Martha Redi
Olav Redi
Sandra Shapiro
Charles Wan
Peter R. WealeFor New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club
Laura LynchFrom Princeton:
Richard Barrett
Yvonne Bleiman
Michael Curschmann
Alan Goodheart
Sarah Hollister
Marvin Israel
Anne Waldron Neumann
Candace Preston
Helmut Schwab
Christine Stansell
Robert C. Tucker
Mort Zachter
Return to top
Eagles were probably stopping by for a meal
To the editor:
Regarding the American Bald Eagle sightings at Lake Carnegie (The Packet, Jan. 3), I receive numerous reports in my capacity of secretary of the New Jersey Audubon Society's Bird Records Committee, and have heard the same reports mentioned in your article (and more besides).
Given the fall time frame of the reports, it is most likely these birds (subadults as well as adults) were migrants stopping by for a meal. As the species' population recovers nationally from DDT, migrating eagles have become a more familiar and welcome sight for people who frequent bodies of water where the birds fish. But if Professor Hollister or anyone else has information concerning a possible local nest, that information should be reported promptly (since eagles begin nesting in January) to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program, so the site can be protected. That agency has been vital in protecting bald eagles in New Jersey, and the eagles have increased their nests from a single one between 1970 and 1988 to 27 in 2001.
For information on the program and New Jersey's endangered species, and forms to use for reporting, see these Web links: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensphome.htm and http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/rprtform.htm.
Also, for the record, a bald eagle was seen during the National Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count Dec. 15, but it was at Mercer County Park in West Windsor, not Rosedale Park.
Laurie Larson
Sycamore Lane
Montgomery
Kingston plan sets traffic priorities
To the editor:
Sandra Brillhart's letter ("Make our roadways safer for pedestrians") in the Dec. 27 Packet is outstanding. Too often, our roadways are "improved" to maximize traffic volume and traffic velocity. Pedestrians are left to take their chances.
The New Jersey Department of Transportation's program for pedestrian and bicycle mobility planning, run by Bill Feldman, is a definite step in the right direction. With the help of our townships, the Village of Kingston recently applied for and completed a planning grant under this program. Citizen participation in the planning process was excellent. While the plan doesn't solve all of Kingston's traffic problems, it will improve the viability of Kingston's small businesses and the quality of life of our residents. In dollars-and-cents terms, it will also improve our property values, and the investment value of real estate in Kingston.
Not everyone agrees, of course; despite Gov. McGreevey's pledge to stop subsidizing sprawl, we still have too many traffic engineers who think that their job is to create more traffic. Nonetheless, I hope that Ms. Brillhart's thesis of putting pedestrians first is embraced by the other Transportation Management Authorities throughout the state, and throughout the DOT itself.
Steve Masticola
Church Street
Franklin
Improve safety for pedestrians, bikers
To the editor:
I hope our local officials and employers read Sandra Brillhart's letter (The Packet, Dec. 27) regarding issues of bus, bike and pedestrian safety and mobility. Here are a couple of local problems that can easily be solved. I hope other readers will add to this list of small things that can be done to increase safety and mobility through our towns.
Try biking north up The Great Road on the bike path. It stops, with a 90-degree turn into the traffic, right at the notch at the top of the hill where the road is at its narrowest and most dangerous. People will use a bike path that does not put the user into a dangerous situation, and that goes somewhere.
Or try biking along the bike path of Hodge Road where it turns north onto Lafayette Road. Just after that turn, the path stops abruptly at an uncut curb. To avoid this hazard, a biker might get off the bike path where Hodge Road is narrowed by a traffic-calming island, creating another hazard.
Or how about crossing Nassau Street on foot? Yes, cars must stop for pedestrians at cross streets even if the crosswalks are not marked. But do cars stop? Try crossing Nassau Street at Linden Lane to get to the bus stop at the Sunoco station, especially at night. A few freshly painted crosswalks would at least remind motorists that they must yield to pedestrians.
Or try driving up Washington Road between Lake Carnegie and Prospect Street at night. Can you spot the pedestrian crossings? The quaint brick walks are invisible at night, especially without adequate lighting. The crosswalks would be visible if highlighted by white lines.
I would like to see a reporter (or editor) publish a list of the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists that can be fixed relatively cheaply, and thus help us to encourage our governing bodies to take action.
Lincoln S. Hollister
Make our roadways safer for pedestrians
To the editor:
Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing and promoting options to the single occupant vehicle, requests your assistance in improving safety conditions for pedestrians and NJ Transit passengers who board or disembark the 600 bus route along Route 1.
The unfortunate accident on Dec. 11 in which Raymond Dittbrenner was killed when attempting to cross Route 1 after getting off the bus is a tragic outcome of our failed practices of designing highways solely for the automobile.
The recent growth in retail and service establishments on Route 1 has changed the nature of the workforce on the corridor, with more employees now dependent on public transit to get to their jobs.
While the highway improvement projects built to accommodate this new development have made it easier and faster for automobiles, they have done so at the expense of other transportation modes.
Sadly, the problem is not unique to Route 1.
"Mean Streets 2002," a recently released report of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STTP), states that pedestrian fatalities are up nationwide. Nationwide, only about 5 percent of all trips are made on foot but about 12 percent of all traffic deaths are pedestrians, making walking one of the most dangerous modes of travel.
However, less than 1 percent of federal transportation dollars goes to protecting bicyclists and pedestrians.
In New Jersey, over 19 percent of all traffic fatalities in 2000 and 2001 were pedestrians. Yet, according to the report, New Jersey only spends 38 cents per person on pedestrian safety - about half the national average.
The STTP report shows that these policies place children, the elderly and African-Americans at particularly high risk. The recent accident on Route 1 bears witness to these troubling statistics.
Here are just a few things that can be done to prevent more needless accidents.
· All bus stops need to be clearly marked with crosswalks and, at signalized intersections, with signal activators.
- Zoning ordinances and site plans need to facilitate, not create barriers for, public transportation.
- Highway improvements must include pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
- The 600 bus route and schedule should be re-examined to see how it can better serve existing retail centers on Route 1.
Greater Mercer TMA urges state, local and regional transportation agencies to ensure that Mr. Dittbrenner did not die in vain by creating safer streets for all who use them.
Sandra Brillhart
Executive Director
Greater Mercer TMA
Is the Roundtable going in a circle?
It appears the Department of Transportation is disregarding the environment as we round the last curve on the road to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Penns Neck Area. Well over 18 months ago many of us began participating in The Partner's Roundtable, a process, initiated by the New Jersey DOT and guided by the Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) of Rutgers University, which would lead to the development of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Penns Neck area. This project was formerly known as the Millstone Bypass and has erroneously been called the Penns Neck Bypass. The current project was begun after the then Governor, Christine Whitman, rejected the Environmental Assessment (EA) and ordered the initiation of the EIS. Former Governor Whitman stated at the time "We must ensure, however, that we are not creating more harm to the environment than we are trying to eliminate We must convince ourselves that we are taking the route that least affects the area's environment and character."
The project began with extensive and far-reaching interviews with many of the groups and organizations involved with the original EA process. Some groups favored the conclusions of the EA and the "preferred alignment" while other groups opposed the conclusions and the alignment. At the end of several months when the Roundtable had identified the parties who would participate, we began another process, again lasting a few more months where a problem statement, goals and objectives and the matrix for judging effectiveness were agreed upon.Approximately a year ago we started an exercise aimed at developing various major and sub alternative alignments for any potential road projects. There were presentations by various "experts," many were subcontractors hired by NJDOT with no input by any Roundtable members, on traffic volume measuring, design engineering, Bus Rapid Transit and alternative transportation systems and the like. Many members of the Roundtable kept asking, throughout this entire process, when were we going to receive presentations from the environmental and cultural and historic experts and when were we going to factor these major concerns into our evaluations of these prospective alignments? This is after all an Environmental Impact Statement.
We were informed during the month of August 2002 that the environmental presentation would be made shortly and the Section 106 and Section 4f review process of the National Environmental Policy Act would be started with the release of documents on September 5 with comments due to NJDOT within 20 days. The 106 (and 4f) process requires that any federally funded project, as this one substantially is, be examined to determine whether it will affect any historic or cultural properties. Within the project area, there are already 3 historic districts and 6 individual resources listed on or considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The documents that required review were provided mainly at area libraries and government offices, comprised 6 volumes and ran to over 500 pages. No presentations by any consultant or expert was provided prior to the date when "official, for the record" comment was due.
At the September 25 meeting of the Roundtable, a DOT consultant from DMJM+Harris gave a presentation on the environmental, cultural and historic review process that consisted of reading slides, many with outdated or irrelevant data. The consultant seemed unable to answer many substantive questions about data and procedure. Let's not forget that the D&R Canal and the Millstone River are major recreation and watershed areas with substantial wetlands. We were also informed that most of the environmental data would be culled from existing sources in other words, no new studies specific to this site or project would be undertaken.
The Voorhees group has released the calendar for the rest of the project, and it has allotted two meetings in November for the entire discussion of the environmental, cultural and historic issues and affects. This is just a month before the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be released. We were promised at the beginning of the process that it would "take as long as necessary to do a thorough and complete job." However, many of us noticed that at the end of June, the process suddenly shifted into overdrive. Meetings that had been meticulously detailed were now severely compressed; discussion was curtailed; moving things along became the main focus and the release of important environmental data occurred during the start of the school year and vacations and holiday celebrations for many. We do not want to purposely delay the process, after all, we have devoted over five years and hundreds of hours to the process without the compensation the "professionals" are receiving for their time. However we will not tolerate the most critical and crucial part of this process being eviscerated.
The New Jersey Department of Transportation is driving the process and it must allow full and adequate time for the most important part of the DEIS or the ultimate end of this process will be right where it began: with a flawed EIS which will potentially result in a waste of taxpayer dollars, bring no relief from the traffic nightmare for the citizens of the region, insure potential lawsuits from a host of concerned parties and organizations and further undermine our faith in government's ability to make a positive contribution to our lives.
Signed by the following members of the Millstone Bypass Alert:
Canal Society of New Jersey
The D & R Canal Coalition
Northeast Field Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Princeton Environmental Commission
Sensible Transportation Options Partnership
Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter, Central Group
Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust
West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives
Whole Earth CenterAnd the following individuals:
Rosemary Blair
Elizabeth Lunbeck
Patrick Lyons
Helmut Schwab
Christine Stansell
Robert Tuckercc:
Senator Jon S. Corzine
Senator Robert Torricelli
Senatorial Candidate Frank Lautenberg
Congressman Rush Holt
Senator Peter Inverso
Senator Shirley Turner
Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein
Assemblyman Gary Guear
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora
Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman
Mr. Anthony Sabadussi, NJ Department of Transportation
Martin Robbins, Transportation Policy Institute, Rutgers University
Jon Carnegie , Transportation Policy Institute, Rutgers University
Helen Neuhaus, Helen Neuhaus & Associates
Comments on In-Progress Review for the Penns Neck "Area EIS
Alternative: G or G1, plus the Vaughn Drive extension
Either the G or the G1 alternative is a "one-step-up-from-No-Build" solution and is thus the simplest and most economical road based alternative. It provides great improvements to intersections where--especially at Route 1 and Washington Rd.--because of the high speed limit and old-fashioned circle configuration--accidents occur and mobility is impaired. Further improvements might include larger size traffic lights and better signage starting further away from the intersections.
The speed limit on Route 1 between Harrison St. and Quaker Bridge Rd. should be reduced to 35 mph. This stretch of Route 1 is highly populated and has many curb cuts. The lower speed limit moves traffic at the best rate and would prove much safer to all drivers, including trucks.
The G or G1 alternative also leaves Washington Road open to through traffic into Princeton. This is imperative to maintain the distribution of traffic in three entrances into Princeton, rather than two, as well as to keep a direct route open between Princeton and Princeton Junction.
Because of the forecasts for much greater traffic in the region and the poor economic conditions of the moment, would it not be better to find a workable solution at low cost, rather than build a permanent road which already is seen as below service and, depending on future development, may be in the wrong place?
Route 1 in-a-cut
This is a very good idea and appears to be feasible. It would be my runner-up solution to the intersection of Washington Rd. and Route 1.
Frontage Roads
Frontage roads would be imperative with Route 1 in-a-cut, and I would choose the diamond configuration that we see in Alternative D.
East-side connector Road
I am opposed to all east-side connector roads. A four-lane road with a median is outrageous, going against all previous discussions, including the West Windsor Master Plan. Even before the Sarnoff expansion plans became known, I argued that the two-lane road previously planned along the Millstone River would endanger the health of the river, bring more traffic from the East, destroy woodlands and wetlands, and badly disturb an important historical and recreational area. The Sarnoff plans not only underline my arguments but puts the cost of such a road, which would mainly serve Sarnoff, squarely in the hands of the public. This is self-serving and totally unfair!
In addition, I read constantly how much the residents of Washington Road Penns neck suffer from traffic on the road. I am also a resident of Washington Road and do not find the traffic a problem except at peak hours, which add up to 3-4 hours per day. All future rods in the area will have too much traffic! However, I am aware of the horrendous forecasts for the future and am cognizant that we must work for a solution.
I suggest that a four-lane highway along the edge of Penns Neck to the north added to the four-lane highway that is Alexander Road along the southern edge of Penns Neck would completely change the character of an historic and conveniently-placed community, long blessed with the river and woods on one side and easy access to stores and services in several directions. Wedged in between two busy roads, Penns Neck would soon become a cut-off backwater, without easy access to the outside, especially if Washington Road were closed. Communities like this soon die, having lost their soul, or become overtaken by the more vital areas around them, such as the railroad station with its potential development or the rampant and continuing development on Route 1. To survive, it is essential that Penns Neck remain vitally connected to the communities around it. An east-side connector road will help only to destroy this chance. I am convinced that with careful context-designed planning and intelligent internal improvements (new signage, sidewalks, more attractive streetlights, lower speed limits, crosswalks), Penns Neck can retain its good quality of life without losing its traditional main thoroughfare to the east and west or adding yet one more busy road to the north.
Vaughn Drive Connector Roads
In my opinion, this is an essential part of all road-based alternatives. I have no clear opinion about which configuration is best at the RR bridge.
Environmental Impact Statement
As a member of the Partners' Roundtable and as chair of the Problem Statement Committee, I have been an active participant in the EIS process from the beginning. Since it was announced that the work must speed up and the DEIS must be finished in December, I have become disillusioned with the process. We all entered this commitment, with the understanding that the process was new, "out of the box;" we were told that the public involvement was uppermost for the completion of the project. Sadly, we find now that after months of putting our ideas into the creation of many road-based solutions, we are told that only four meetings will be devoted to hearing about the environment, and that the public will not have had a chance to hear any data before the DEIS appears. The whole purpose of the exercise has been to improve upon the
environmental data provided by the EA. Based upon the few "in progress" facts we have been given, I am not confident that the environment will be adequately covered. I also feel badly misled by the project team.I am therefore questioning what we are being told and why we are still sitting at the Roundtable. Even the Comment Sheet passed out at the In-Progress Meeting leaves little space for comments on the environment. Why has the project team not objected to the speed-up demanded by the DOT? Have we not once again found ourselves being manipulated by an agency that has
already made up its mind or which doesn't want to spend time on the very heart of the EIS? What would happen if the project team insisted on completing its work at the pace it needs? What is so terrible about being a few months behind? Nobody shut down the process when the EA took so long to appear. We demand some answers to this situation and warn that if the
environmental data proves shoddy or incorrect when first seen at the next public meeting, there will be consequences. Better to do the work correctly in advance.Paula McGuire
West Windsor
Penns Neck Area EIS
In-Progress Review
September 30, 2002
Comment Sheet
I. Action and AlternativesAlternative B
One of the least desirable alternatives. It has the following disadvantages:
1. Has maximum impact on the Canal park, Carnegie Lake and the Millstone River, traveling a considerable distance parallel to these bodies of water.
2. The entire Penns Neck community is much more isolated from Princeton (Princeton Medical Center, for example), and from the shopping centers on Route 1. The omission of the Vaughn Drive connector is totally unacceptable.Alternative C
I view this as a the best alternative by far for the following reasons:
1. It preserves the woods and wet lands near the Millstone River and Little Bear Brook. It does not disturb the canal park and Carnegie Lake.
2. It directs traffic by way of Vaughn Dr. connector away from the Penns Neck community to the commercial Alexander Rd. area. The Vaughn Dr. connector also reduces traffic through the Berrien City neighborhood which is presently burdened by excessive traffic on Alexander Rd. on the east side of the railroad.
3. Makes better use of the recently-built Alexander Rd. bridge structure over Rt. 1.
4. Directs some traffic away from the narrow curvy part of Alexander Rd. which intersects the D&R Canal Park. It does this by way of the new west-side connector between Alexander Rd. and Washington Rd. Improvements which could make Alternative C even better:
1. The important Vaughn Dr. should be connected more directly to Rte. 571 as it comes off the railroad bridge. Essentially, make it continuation Rt.571. The access to the piece of Washington Rd. which goes through the Penns Neck neighborhood should be less direct to encourage non-local traffic to use Alexander Rd. and the Alexander Rd. interchange at Rt. 1.Olav Redi
West Windsor
Penns Neck EIS is far from complete
The EIS is supposed to be an impact study which seeks to provide and evaluate a group of alternative transportation options, taking into account environmental and historical preservation impacts.
The present EIS alternatives are seriously incomplete. Except for the "no-build alternative" there is no alternative which preserves the environmental woods and wetlands, and maintains the historical traffic pattern in Penns Neck, while mitigating adverse residential neighborhood impact.
Only alternatives C and G are acceptable to West Windsor residents of Penns Neck whose homes neighbor the woods and wetlands between the Sarnoff Laboratories and the railroad. There are perhaps 100 residents of 20 homes who have chosen to live in this quiet and beautiful place, who would be seriously impacted by the traffic noise, lights, and loss of "sense of place" if any of the other alternatives comes to pass. And remarkably, even the C and G alternatives do not comprise the complete "environmentally attractive" alternatives as would be expected from such an expensive and far reaching study as is being carried out for the EIS!
Specifically, alternatives C and G, which leave untouched the beautiful, pristine woods and wetlands east of the Sarnoff Laboratories, do not include preservation of the historical east-west
traffic pattern made possible by the "Route-1-in-a-cut". This curious term designates a tunnel for Route 1 under Route 571, which would allow local traffic between Princeton and Penns Neck to continue as it has for centuries, since it was first an Indian path and then the primary route between Hightstown and Princeton.Additionally, all the "environmental alternatives", C and G, should include the Vaughn Drive Connector. This road connecting Route 571 and Alexander Road would move traffic through the present parking or business areas west of the railroad, and would keep traffic away from
the residential areas of Berrien City and Penns Neck neighborhoods, and would extend the value of the Alexander Road overpass for turnpike to Route 1 connections.New alternatives C.2 and G.3. should be included in the EIS study: These alternatives, to include Route1-in-a-cut and the Vaughn Drive connector, would preserve our environmental treasures and historically important infrastructure. These alternatives do not devalue the quality of life of any residential areas and would best preserve the Penns Neck "sense of place". Finally, they are economical as well, as they will not require highway construction through the wetland area at all; saving taxpayer dollars is of even more importance today.
Martha H. Redi
West Windsor
Lake Carnegie, the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park, and the Millstone River and its tributaries form a continuum of parkland filled with wildlife. The area also provides recreation for thousands of people who row, canoe, kayak, fish, walk, jog, bicycle, and cross-country ski in or along those waterways. Some people even use the paths to provide a modicum of serenity while walking or bicycling to work.
Yet this unique area is threatened by the possibility of a road near the shores of the river and the canal.
Many cities now rue the decisions, made a generation or more ago, to build roads next to their rivers. In most cases the rivers were the reasons for the development of those cities; they provided drinking water, transportation, as well as power. It seemed logical to site the roads next to former water-transport routes and well away from areas that were rapidly filling with commercial development.
Now those cities are trying to clean the very same rivers and to reclaim their waterfronts as sites for recreation. It's too late for most. But it's certainly not too late for us in central New Jersey; we've not yet lost our waterfront.
The Roundtable for the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been meeting for the past year and a half to help find a solution to the traffic and mobility problems in the region, but a solution that will also protect the precious historic properties, archaeological sites, neighborhoods, and the environment.
If a road is to be built or greatly modified, the New Jersey Department of Transportation estimates that construction would not begin until approximately 2008. However, the NJ DOT wants to hurry the Roundtable process, rushing the key environmental and historical studies in order to complete a Draft EIS by this December. What's the rush?
We should allow the process to continue without unreasonable time constraints so that the historical and environmental studies can be thoroughly completed and subjected to the same scrutiny that was given to the development of the 18 road alternatives presented on Monday at the Penns Neck Area EIS In-progress Review. It is more important to do it right before the Draft EIS is released.
Why risk a faulty document subject to question? Why risk irreversible damage to the environment?
Sandra Shapiro
West Windsor
Thank you for the well -presented review on September 30 and the opportunity to comment on the Action & Alternatives.
Section 106 - We feel that after reviewing the information in this section you should have overlaid a map of the Historic & Archaeological Resources onto one of the handouts. This very sensitive information seems to be on the sidelines, having to be dug out and pieced together from many volumes.
Population & Employment Forecasts - 1) This has changed dramatically post 9/11/01; therefore this information needs to be updated. 2) It must be noted that the study used Merril Lynch. Merril Lynch in Plainsboro is looking to close this campus, it will do so as soon as the "heat" from all the state kickbacks Merril Lynch took to build the Hopewell campus dies out.
Road Based Alternatives - We believe that alternatives A - F represent major over building and are not needed. Based on past history they will not solve the problems and only make new ones.
1) The State Study published June 4, 2002, shows that the Route 1/ Nassau Park intersection ranks the 13th worst intersection for crashes in New Jersey. The study reveals that this intersection was poorly planned and is confusing, with too many options for drivers. WHY IS IT STILL OPERATING??? It makes very little sense to continue to allow this situation to continue when viable road construction is already in place. There should be only right turns in and right turns out (and if this proves difficult - close this road). The Quarkerbridge overpass was designed to smoothly take traffic into the Walmart Shopping Center and to Quarkerbridge Mall. It was also designed to handle U-turns, making the JUG HANDLE at Nassau Park obsolete. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW OVERBUILDING of roadways made more problems than they solve.
2) The Meadow Road Overpass - this overpass appears to be complete; however, we are confused. Why is the light still operating at Carnegie Center Blvd??? It was our understanding that by designing this huge overpass, providing a SECOND easy access to Carnegie Center and Market Fair Mall, there would be no need for the redundant light at Carnegie Center Blvd. No light at Carnegie Center Blvd. would allow traffic to move freely on Route 1 between the lights at Washington Road and Nassau Park - take out the dangerous light at Nassau Park and you have even more room.3) Of course, you have never mentioned the real problems that are really bogging down traffic on Route 1. Those problems do not stem from the Washington Road, Harrison Street or Fisher Place lights. The backup seems to come around the 194/295 intersection with Route 1, and the fact too many trucks are using Route 1 instead of paying the tolls on the turnpike.
4) We drove on Washington Road last Friday, Oct 4, at 5:30 pm - the peak of rush hour. Headed from Princeton to West Windsor, we had a 10 minute delay for the Route 1 lights. Having lived in many states and areas of varying population, we find that this kind of traffic delay is EXPECTED in most areas and don't understand why folks making this commute are putting up such a fuss. After speaking with several people that make the commute across Route 1, we were amazed to hear that they would not even consider other, less time consuming routes, but preferred to use the "traffic excuse" for being late to work, or for general venting.To sum up our feelings regarding Road-Based Alternatives A - F we feel that the State/Fed Government is not capable of fully designing a road that will truly FIX ALL OF THE PROBLEMS and may (as in 1 above) produce problems that are much worse. We also feel that we will be tricked into thinking that you are going to eliminate all of the lights between Raymond Road and Carnegie Center Blvd. only to find out that (see 2 above) all or most of the lights will remain. Furthermore, studies are needed to assess why trucks are using Route 1, what can be done about getting these trucks back on the turnpikes and what is really causing the backups on Route 1 South. Lastly, the delays experienced by Route 1 crossers are not out of place in today's commuter world, and evidently these commuters need this excuse, otherwise they would have found at least a half dozen other routes to and from their destinations - and, yes alternative routes do exist!
Our Alternative of choice is G.2. - We do not understand why this alternative is not currently being used since it costs little or no money to enable. (Maybe that is why - this project seems to need deep pockets & greedy politicians, not smart people!)
The JUG HANDLES at Washington Road & Harrison Street are chaotic and cause the majority of the East-West backups and delays. We have never understood why perfectly good/safe U-turn construction at the Scuddders Mill Overpass and Alexander Road has been largely ignored. On the above mentioned ( see 4), we found that jug handle turners pushed their way into the traffic - folks that had been waiting for up to 10 minutes to cross - then all traffic was forced to funnel 3 lanes into one, causing more chaos and backups. Jug Handle turners often obstruct crossing traffic that just wants to go straight.
East-West traffic can take the extra minute or two it takes to reach the perfectly good/safe U-turn construction at Scudders Mill Overpass or Alexander Road. We mostly use this method and find it very satisfactory.
G.2 should be implemented NOW, then evaluated in one year. No building plans should even be on the boards until G.2 has had time to be properly evaluated (and not by greedy politicians and contractors).
Other Comments:
1) Your plans do not seem to include more parking spaces for all of the additional train commuters that you are predicting. Where is the land for these spaces?
2) The Washington/Post Road intersection in West Windsor is a backup problem that is not addressed in your plans.
3) The intersection at the train tracks between North Post and Alexander is B-A-D. The whole thing -- from the narrowing of the road to lack of stop signs on all sides -- speaks volumes for the committee in West Windsor that is trying force to the overbuilding on Route 1 down the population's throats.
4) We feel that the overbuilding along this area of Route 1 jeopardizes major historical, recreational and archaeological sites within the field of the purposed construction.
5) JUG HANDLES such as exist at Nassau Park South and Washington Road are NOT for modern drivers. Left hand turn lanes and signals, overpasses designed for U-turns are what most modern drivers expect - ask someone that has newly moved to this backward state about Jug Handles!
6) It is widely felt that the traffic signals at Washington, Harrison and Fisher were retimed to facilitate this massive construction project - sounds like kickback to us! Note that signage asking for call in support of this project was quickly erected after the light timing was changed.BOTTOM LINE - THINK SMART
The road construction that this already in place - with a few simple modifications - has the MOST potential of solving the traffic problems, cost the tax payers very little, and can be completed overnight!
Karyn Milner
Jay Milner
Lauren Milner
Princeton, NJ 08540
Central Jersey Sierra Club's Comments (As Consulting Party)
September 25, 2002
Mr. Anthony Sabidussi
Section Chief, Bureau of Environmental Services
New Jersey Department of Transportation
PO Box 600
Trenton, NJ 08625-0600Dear Mr. Sabidussi:
As a consulting party (as specified in 36CFR800.2) Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the efforts to date on the Penns Neck Environmental Impact Statement. Sierra Club is very supportive of a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The scope, technical content and public review procedures for the proposed project's environmental impact and alternatives review documents are critical.
Sierra Club is committed to participating constructively in the process in order to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the historic, cultural, scenic and ecological resources of the immediate project impact area in West Windsor Township and Princeton Township in Mercer County and Plainsboro Township, Middlesex County. It is important to note that, while the impact study area has been broadened to include a greater amount of overall land, as well as more frontage on Route 1 both north and south of the study area, the Area of Potential Effect (APE) really extends farther than 100 feet outside the impact study area as noted in the surveys. For example, in all past and present studies the study area on the northeastern side along the Millstone River is not large enough. In the detail of Princeton, NJ and Hightstown NJ in the work complied by Douglas C. McGarish of John Milner Associates it is clear that the study impact area goes only to the banks of the Millstone River and ignores anything outside this boundary. The Millstone River and its adjoining wetlands and forests comprise an impressive natural area in the midst of an urban environment. The wetlands support a diverse variety of vegetation and provide habitat for wildlife and birdlife. Species observed on canoe trips through the area included muskrat, great blue heron, river otter, green-backed heron, wood duck, rough-winged swallow, green frog and many others.
Environmental Resources
Stream Corridor Impact regulations (NJAC 7:5-9.3) are vitally important and any proposed road project must adhere to state, local and federal regulations. The regulations place a high burden on the applicant to make a "clear and convincing demonstration" that adherence to the requirements would "conflict with a compelling public need." Second, the purpose of the "proposed undertaking is to reduce traffic congestion resulting from the present Lower Harrison Street and Washington Road intersections with Route 1." Accordingly, Sierra Club believes, that by definition, reduction of traffic congestion and delay could never be considered a "compelling public need" that would be weighed more favorable over protection drinking water supplies, wetlands and public lands.
Attention must be given to protecting the physical water bodies in the impact area, specifically the Millstone River, Delaware & Raritan Canal State Park and Carnegie Lake. The proposed project will have adverse impacts on public drinking water supplies and air quality. Avoidance of these resources must be a top priority.
The Penns Neck Area EIS, and Alternatives A-G, plus a "no-build" alternative (Fall 2002) have only been reviewed in terms of mobility. There needs to be a simultaneous process to incorporate historic, environmental and cultural concerns. It is impossible for the consulting parties to fully participate in the short time frame allotted between September 4 and September 25, 2002 (deadline for comments). There should be more opportunities, as stated in the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Process (36 CFR, Part 800), to identify opportunities to enhance public understanding of historic properties and promote opportunities for partnerships to address preservation needs and initiatives.
The factual information contained in the Historic Architectural Survey 4.0 Historical Overview August 2002 about the Delaware & Raritan Canal is grossly inadequate. Most of the canal system is intact today and is a tribute to the bygone days when the movement and delivery of goods was dependent upon a team of mules or steam tugboats. Work on the Canal began in 1831 and was completed in 1834. Laborers, the majority of whom were Irish immigrants dug the Canal mostly by hand and some died in the process. Outbreaks of cholera took its toll on the workers and some are buried along its banks. The main canal was 44 miles long and the feeder canal is 22 miles long. In 1973, the canal and its remaining structures were entered on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1974, the 66 mile canal and tie path were made into a state park. This park serves as a major recreational resource to residents throughout the most densely populated state. The D&R Canal State Park is extremely unique in that it is used as a public water supply (65 million gallons per day) and a recreational area with 48 public access points that include parking, picnic areas, playgrounds, camping, canoe concessionaries, footbridges, connecting trails and interpretive signage. The D&R Canal began as a towpath and was part of the inland waterway. Its large size, rip rapped banks, and relatively level configuration facilitated the passage of viable powered vessels. It remained a viable commercial waterway long after railroads had taken over the coal traffic, and use by pleasure boats was strong in its final years. The park's trail system was designated a National Recreation Trail in 1992.
It is critical to include current and accurate information on valuable resources such as the D&R Canal State Park and the Millstone River. Avoidance of these resources is paramount to protecting drinking water supplies, natural buffers, wildlife, birdlife, recreation, and historic structures. The section of the park between Alexander Road and the Millstone Aqueduct is one of the most undisturbed sections of the main canal. Sierra Club recommends that an updated natural resource inventory be conducted for this park because references in the surveys show the latest study in 1981.
Historic Resources
There is an important study underway to designate central Jersey as part of a National Heritage Area. Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a Special Resource Study of the Crossroads of the American Revolution in central New Jersey in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bills (P.L. 106-113). The goal of the study was to determine if the region met the criteria for a new unit of National Park System and, if not, whether other management alternatives including designation as a national heritage area were feasible. Both boundary alternatives submitted by the National Park Service in September 2002 include the proposed study area for the Penns Neck project because of the significant number of American Revolutionary War sites and historic corridors located in the Trenton, Princeton and Kingston area. The Milner Associates study fails to recognize the area as a district of historic significance. Rather it is fragmenting the sites which reduce the historic value and the vital role of the region in history. Any road alignment has the potential to damage important links to American Revolutionary War sites in the region.
Some historic sites related to the American Revolution and part of a potential National Heritage Area include:
Rockingham located near D&R Canal between Rocky Hill and Kingston
Nassau Hall, Princeton University
Princeton Battlefield Park
King's Highway (Route 27) path of Continental Army after Battle of Princeton 1777 between Princeton Township and Kingston
The Stonybrook Settlement National Register District - area surrounding Princeton Battlefield Park with historic approach roads, period homes, lines of sight between Rebel and British Forces and actual sites of combat not in the Battlefield National Historic Landmark.
Mapleton Road and Princeton Nursery Historic District. A house on Mapleton Road (circa 1756) was the site of a Revolutionary War skirmish (cannonball in wall).Upon review of the Management Summary in the Historic Architectural Survey for Penns Neck Area EIS Draft August 2002, Sierra Club concurs with the statement that New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) rendered opinions that the following additional properties and districts are eligible for the National Register: The Penns Neck Cemetery, The Aqueduct Mills Historic District, The Covehoven-Silvers Logan House and the Princeton Operating Station. Had it not been for SHPO's review of these sites and subsequent determination, the sites would not have been identified for listing on the National Register.
In addition to the sites listed above, it is necessary to give further consideration to the original buildings at Sarnoff Corporation (formerly RCA) in West Windsor Township. The original buildings were constructed in 1942 and contain a wealth of history in the field of modern technology. The David Sarnoff Library houses an impressive collection of documents, books, photographs and reports. Sarnoff has many "world's first achievements." Color television, Liquid Crystal Displays, Transistors, Broadcasting, High Definition Television, Infrared Cameras and many other technological advances originated in the buildings on Washington Road. The woodlands and pathways on the campus lead to the Little Bear Brook and connect with the Millstone River. The woodlands provide a peaceful walking area for the engineers and scientists who conduct research and development of the products that advance our world. In addition, the surrounding Penns Neck and Fisher Place neighborhoods enjoy the woods and fields for walking and recreation.
Archeological Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties through consultation among the Agency Official and other parties with an interest in the effects on historic properties "consulting parties" and then "develop in consultation with identified consulting parties alternatives and proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of the undertaking on historic properties and describe them in the Environmental Assessment or Draft Environmental Impact Statement."
Road building in New Jersey has historically taken precedence over archeological and historic sites. Sierra Club is very interested in seeing further study of the archeological resources along the Millstone River as shown in the current maps of the APE. The Woodland Indian sites and further documentation could not be verified by the deadline of September 25, 2002 due to the lack of independent archeologists in the area. It is important to the process to include Native American Groups as consulting parties. It would also be helpful to include the Archeological Society of New Jersey in reviewing the documents.
Next Steps
As the EIS process proceeds, it is imperative to continue the involvement of interested parties. Further consultation must take place with all consulting parties, plus historical societies such as the Canal Society of New Jersey, Princeton Historical Society and Native American Groups. The major landowners were involved for many years before the public became involved. An effective partnership can only come about face to face interaction and discussion.
Sierra Club is anxious to see the important ecological, cultural, historic and recreational resources in the area given higher priority as the process moves forward. Please let us know how we can assist further in this effort.
Sincerely,
Mary M. Penney
Chairperson,
Sierra Club
Central Jersey Groupc.c. Laura Lynch, Conservation Chairperson, NJ Chapter Sierra Club
Jeff Tittel, Chapter Director, NJ Chapter Sierra Club
Helen Neuhaus, Helen Neuhaus Associates
Jon Carnegie, Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute
Dorothy Guzzo, NJ State Historic Preservation Office
The Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust
A Not-for-profit Corporation 501 (c) (3)
PO Box 372
Princeton, NJ 08542Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Anthony B. Sabidussi
Section Chief, Bureau of Environmental Services
New Jersey Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 600
Trenton, NJ 08625-0600Transmitted via email to: anthony.sabidussi@dot.state.nj.us
Dear Mr. Sabidussi:
We are in receipt of the September 4, 2002 correspondence and enclosures from FHWA initiating the Section 106 process for the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement. In the letter Mr. Kimm states that the purpose of the EIS is to "study a variety of alternatives to address traffic congestion, mobility constraints and safety concerns on Route U.S. 1 and east-west crossroads in the Penns Neck area?" We disagree with this statement. An EIS is required when "a proposed Federal action has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment." The human environment includes both the built and natural environment, including cultural and historic resources and an area's unique characteristics, such as proximity to parklands, wetlands, and ecologically critical areas. Another threshold in the determination of whether an EIS is should be undertaken, is the degree of public controversy surrounding a proposed project. According to 40CFRz1508.27, "significance varies with the setting of the proposed action". Particularly important is how a project will affect a region's "unique characteristics". An area's "unique characteristics", as defined in 40CFRz1508.27, are its historic and cultural resources, park lands, wetlands, scenic rivers, and ecologically critical areas.
After the issuance of an EA for the "Millstone Bypass", the predecessor of this project, Governor Whitman two years ago ordered a full Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Route 1 improvements in this area largely because of the high concentration of historic, cultural and environmental resources and because the EIS, in her words, "goes farther than the EA by requiring a more comprehensive analysis of the project's alignment and alternatives to the project. In a press release at the time, the Governor stated:
"Reducing traffic congestion on Route 1 is a very important goal, as is reducing the air pollution caused by the congestion. We must ensure, however, that we are not creating more harm to the environmental than we are trying to eliminate?. I am calling for the completion of the environmental impact statement so we can have the most comprehensive assessment possible of the project, as well as the full participation of the public in this process."
Noting that the project would require the removal of a number of trees along the historic Elm Allee on Washington Road, the Governor said:
"Before we consider taking action that would so permanently change this Princeton landmark, we must convince ourselves that we are taking the route that least affects the area's environment and character."
As part of the EIS process, a Partner's Roundtable Advisory Committee was formed and has been meeting bi-weekly; as a result, 18 project alternatives been identified. Alternatives A-G plus the "No -Build" alternative, developed through the roundtable efforts, to date, have not been analyzed through appropriate "filters" that include historic, cultural and environmental considerations and constraints.
The selection of alternative alignments, thus far, has been based solely on mobility. Considerable effort was spent on the identification, discussion, and explanation of possible alignments to that end. Up to now, there has not been a parallel effort devoted to the discussion of historic, cultural and environmental concerns that various alignments may present. Indeed, the round table process was developed primarily to address public controversy surrounding suggested roadway improvements in this area; by and large, the contention is due to the potential negative impact to various historic, environmental and cultural resources contained within the area of potential effect.
Under the new Section 106 regulations, Federal agencies are encouraged to coordinate 106 compliance with steps taken to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4321 et seq.) was enacted on January 1, 1970 in recognition of the widening influence on the human and natural environment that individual federal agency actions can exert. With the passage of the act:
The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.
In order to comply with and carry out this national policy, according to the Act, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means in their undertakings to "assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings" and to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice."
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties through consultation among the Agency Official and other parties with an interest in the effects on historic properties ["consulting parties"] and then "develop in consultation with identified consulting parties alternatives and proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of the undertaking on historic properties and describe them in the EA or DEIS.
In the 106 consultation, selection of alternatives must not be minimized and marginalized. It should be given the same inclusive, face to face process granted to the round table mobility discussions since it a critical part of the EIS process. The regulations, especially in this instance, require more than mock obeisance to the statutory mandates; the paramount process (Section 106 and 4[f)]) for this project must not be eviscerated.
It is our understanding at this juncture, as directed by Mr. Jon Carnegie, in the roundtable meeting minutes of September 9, 2002, we are commenting on "the resource inventory, not sections of previous studies that deal with potential impacts from previously investigated alignment options". We are, therefore, with these comments only examining whether, within the APE lines, the inventory is complete.
We make the following comment and pose these questions regarding the materials:
- The documents and consultants reports, for the most part, are pertinent to past failed projects and analyze various cultural and historic resources in relation to those undertakings.
- The production of these previously submitted documents, many out of date, obviously do not satisfy the intent and spirit of either NEPA or the 106 process in regard to any current proposals. Please advise how the materials will be updated in light more recent determinations of adverse impact to several of the resources. Please advise how the consultation process will be advanced and by what process the consulting parties will discuss and evaluate alternatives, including the round table alternatives, that avoid and minimize negative impacts to historic and cultural resources.
- We note that the Milner Associates in several older reports determined that many of the significant resources within the APE line failed to meet the criteria for eligibility. Yet, those same properties have, subsequently, been either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined eligible for the Register. Based on this demonstrated inaccuracy, we question the consultant's ability to be objective in the future.
- The initiation of the 106 process and the release of the initial materials on September 4th, during vacation time, with the subsequent Jewish holidays and beginning of the school year was inopportune, considering the twenty day review .
- One of most significant sites in the APE, The Sarnoff Laboratories and its campus are significant and seem to meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP. We disagree with the consultant's finding that it is not eligible and also note that, in correspondence to date, the State Historic Preservation Office has not made a determination. We attach a history of this site from the Sarnoff website.
- The archeological sites, within the APE, are treated and evaluated in a fragmented and piecemeal fashion. Past documentation seems to indicate that a large portion of the APE was a native American settlement.
In James Kunstler's book, The Geography of Nowhere, he states the least understood cost in building and maintaining roads, although it is the most keenly felt, is the sacrifice of a sense of place: the idea that people and things exist in some sort of continuity, that we belong to the world physically and chronologically, and that we know where we are. This area, one of the important Crossroads of the American Revolution sites demands all the protection and safeguards that can be provided. We trust that through the Section 106 and 4(f) procedures, we will be able to secure our national heritage.
Very truly yours,
Sarah Hollister
Richard Barrett
Patrick LyonsAttachment
cc:
D. Guzzo, NJ HPO
J. Carnegie, Rutgers
ACHP
National Trust for Historic Preservation
links to
Crossroads of the American Revolution
Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park
Response from Anthony B. Sabidussi, Section Chief, Bureau of Environmental Services, NJDOT
State of New Jersey
Department of Transportation
PO Box 600
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0600James E. McGreevey, Governor
James P. Fox, CommissionerOctober 31, 2002
Sarah Hollister
Richard Barrett
Patrick Lyons
The Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust, Inc.
437 Ridgeview Road
Princeton, NJ 08540Dear Ms. Hollister and Messers Barrett and Lyons:
Thank you for your comments of September 25th. We greatly appreciate the time and thought you put into them. I have shared your comments with the rest of the project team. We are currently working with the cultural resources consultant to consider the issues you raised and, as appropriate, to address your concerns in revised documents. Based on your input and that of others, we are conducting additional research related to the historic significance of the Sarnoff facility and the integrity of the facility to determine if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, we have also discussed the Crossroads of the American Revolution initiative with the NJ Historic Preservation Office and will be mindful of those sites as we continue to evaluate the various alternatives.
As you correctly note in your letter, an EIS is required when a proposed federal action has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment and/or when public controversy dictates the need for an EIS. In this case, the proposed federal action is to undertake a transportation project that will address traffic congestion, mobility constraints and safety concerns on US Route 1 and east-west cross streets in the Penns Neck area. In accordance with federal regulations and guidance the Penns Neck Area EIS is examining a range of actions and alternatives designed to address transportation needs in the Penns Neck area and evaluate the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of the actions and alternatives, including the No-build alternative. Appropriately, a significant portion of the extensive public involvement program undertaken in support of the EIS process has been dedicated to adequately defining the transportation problem(s) to be addressed, establishing goals and objectives to guide the evaluation of alternatives, and defining a range of transportation alternatives to be considered in the EIS.
Cultural resource considerations have been a high priority since the inception of the Penns Neck Area EIS and were given special attention as part of the scoping process. In that regard, targeted stakeholder interviews with each of the local consulting parties designated as part of the Penns Neck Area Improvements Environmental Assessment process, local historic commissions, individuals with special knowledge of local history and the State Historic Preservation Office were conducted. In addition, significant input related to cultural resources has been received through a variety of subsequent public forums, including, many of the 25 Partners' Roundtable and Roundtable subcommittee meetings and the public scoping forum held in December 2001. With the exception of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the membership of the Partners' Roundtable includes all of the designated consulting parties.
As you are aware, the working problem statement agreed by the Partners' Roundtable recognizes that existing transportation problems affect the integrity of study area's many natural, cultural, historic, community and economic resources. The statement makes specific reference to a number of identified cultural resources and also highlights the fact that these resources are held dear and that they will present a limitation on the range and design of solutions that can be considered to address identified transportation problems. In addition, the goals and objectives agreed by the Roundtable specifically reference the protection and enhancement of historic and archeological resources as one of eight goals to be balanced as alternatives are considered in the, EIS. The problem statement and goals and objectives provided the framework for the development of eighteen alternatives to be considered in the EIS.
We share your concern about the consideration of cultural resources in the alternatives design process. Toward this end, many previous cultural resources studies were synthesized for the EIS and additional investigations were initiated to ensure that the inventory of historic resources was up to date, comprehensive and complete. In written technical comments the NJ Historic Preservation Office has expressed their concurrence with the adequacy of the inventory and identification efforts. Information on the location of known cultural resources was incorporated in the base mapping used to as part of the Roundtable's alternatives development deliberations and helped to shape the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS. Significant input from Roundtable members and members of the public regarding potential impacts to natural, community, and cultural resources from each alternative alignment is documented as part of Roundtable meeting records.
To ensure that the cultural resources studies initiated for the EIS are comprehensive, we have solicited comments on a draft survey document from all consulting parties and the public and made the results available to the general public at the recent "In Progress" meeting. A separate draft effects assessment report will be circulated in the near future to solicit input on the assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources from the various alternatives under consideration. These documents will be revised to address comments received and again circulated as part of the draft EIS to consulting parties and the public for further review and comment. A presentation will be made to the Roundtable on the results of the cultural resources investigations. Additionally, a minimum of two meetings are planned to brief consulting parties on the results of the cultural resources survey and solicit any additional comments they might have. It was our intent that through the involvement of consulting parties in the scoping process and as active participating members of the Partners' Roundtable, and through the iterative review of report documents, the totality of which is beyond that normally initiated for Section 106 compliance, cultural resources concerns will be balanced appropriately with other environmental considerations to satisfy the project purpose and need.
Furthermore, it is our intent that once an alternative is selected after the draft EIS public hearing and comment period, and if it involves construction, there will be opportunities for further input from consulting parties to assist us in identifying ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects, and, if they cannot be avoided, develop appropriate mitigation measures. This consultation will occur during preparation of the final EIS.
Again, we appreciate your comments on the cultural resources survey document. We will keep them in mind as we continue to work with the consultant to prepare revised technical studies, with the Partners' Roundtable to address the many and varied concerns raised in that forum, and as we continue consultation for the Section 106 process. We look forward to working with you as the Penns Neck Area EIS process continues.
Very truly yours,
Anthony B. Sabussi
Section Chief, Bureau of Environmental Servicesc: J. Carnegie, Rutgers University
L. Roche, DMJM+Harris
Y. Kim, FHWA
D. Guzzo, NJ SHPO
L. Rappleye-Marsett, NJDOT
Anthony.Sabidussi@dot.state.nj.us
Anthony Sabidussi
New Jersey Department of TransportationDear Mr. Sabidussi,
On reading the information about historic properties in conjunction with the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Study (formerly known as the Millstone Bypass), I am struck by the absence of a listing for the buildings and property of the Sarnoff Corporation. As stated in Sarnoff's own publication:
"For 60 years, since its founding as RCA Labs in 1942, Sarnoff Corporation has been proud to call West Windsor home. During that time, many world-changing inventions were born in the labs, such as the color television in 1946 and the liquid crystal display technology that is used in cell phones, laptops and watches. The Sarnoff legacy of innovation in West Windsor continued in the early 1990s with the development of today's High Definition Television (HDTB) and Direct TV technology. Most recently, Sarnoff and Songbird Hearing, one of Sarnoff's numerous startup companies, developed and brought to market a revolutionary disposable hearing aid."
It is clear that the innovations spawned by the Sarnoff Corporation are historic in nature, and it would be important to preserve where these 20th century technologies were developed. Just as the laboratories of Thomas Edison in East Orange, New Jersey are open as a museum, so Sarnoff could stand as a model of mid-20th century design and development.
The corporation built the facility in West Windsor as an example of a new, innovative campus plan, allowing employees the privilege of working in what was then a modern building, set on a large campus on the banks of the Millstone River. The corporation proceeded to plant a variety of trees, bolstering an already present wooded area once inhabited by the Native American Lenape tribe.
More about the history of the Sarnoff Corporation may be found on its website <http://www.sarnoff.com/about/history/index.asp>.
I therefore ask that you consider adding the entire physical site of the Sarnoff Corporation, the buildings and the land, in West Windsor to the inventory of historic properties to be considered in the EIS.
As well, I note that the program Crossroads of the American Revolution seeks to create a trail between revolutionary sites in central New Jersey. Preserving the land along the Millstone River as part of this trail would aid in this linkage. The website of the Crossroads <http://www.nps.gov/crossroads> notes the following about preservation of open space lands, of which the Sarnoff property would be ideal:
"State and local jurisdictions and non-profit organizations in New Jersey have also preserved significant amounts of acreage for open space and recreation within the study area and continue to do so through the state financed Garden State Trust, local tax dedications and private efforts. Combined, these initiatives provide outstanding opportunities for conservation and recreation in the region."
The Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park is a National Heritage site. This 70-mile linear park is a state and national treasure, heavily used, loved and cherished, particularly between Washington Road and Route 27 (Kingston). More about the history and uses of the park may be found at its website <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/forestry/parks/drcanal.htm>.
The D&R Canal State Park and the Sarnoff property are rich in history and ideal for study and recreation. I urge you to consider adding the Sarnoff tract to the state's inventory of historic buildings and properties.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandra Shapirocc:
Dorothy Guzzo, Deputy Commissioner, Historic Preservation Office
Charles Scott, Historic Preservation Office
Dennis L. Merida, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Office of Planning and Review
Response from Anthony B. Sabidussi, Section Chief, Bureau of Environmental Services, NJDOT
State of New Jersey
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O.Box 600
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0600JAMES E. MCGREEVEY
GovernorJAMES P. Fox
CommissionerOctober 31, 2002
RE: Penns Neck Area EIS
Mercer and Middlesex Counties
Cultural Resources Survey CommentsDear Ms. Shapiro:
Thank you for your comments of September 25th. We greatly appreciate the time and thought you put into them. I have shared your comments with the rest of the project team. We are currently working with the cultural resources consultant to consider the issues you raised and, as appropriate, to address your concerns in revised documents. Based on your input and that of others, we are conducting additional research related to the historic significance of the Sarnoff facility and the integrity of the facility to determine if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. We appreciate your including a reference to the Sarnoff website. Our consultant was already in the process of reviewing this material and other web-based information provided by the State Historic Preservation Office. With regard to the Crossroads of the American Revolution, we have discussed this initiative with the State Historic Preservation Office and will be mindful of those sites as we continue to evaluate the various alternatives.
Again, we appreciate your comments on the cultural resources survey document. We will keep them in mind as we continue to work with the consultant to prepare revised technical studies, with the Partners' Roundtable to address the many and varied concerns raised in that forum, and as we continue consultation for the Section 106 process. We look forward to working with you as the Penns Neck Area EIS process continues.
Very truly yours,
Anthony B. Sabidussi
Section Chief, Bureau of Environmental Servicesc: J. Carnegie, Rutgers University
L. Roche, DMJM+Harris
Y. Kim, FHWA
D. Guzzo, NJ SHPO
L. Rappleye-Marsett, NJDOT
Weak ordinance imperils trees
To the editor:Recent news of plans by Princeton University to clear-cut a 10-acre woodland off Alexander Road, including several hundred trees, is more than dismaying. The university's plan to level this area for 206 student housing units and parking is indicative of other such recent actions in Princeton. For example, one year ago, a 5-acre woodland with several thousand trees was destroyed at the Stuart School. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis without consideration of the cumulative effect.
It is not that we do not officially recognize the value of woodlands. The 1998 tree removal ordinance of the township states at its outset: "The purpose of this article is to control and regulate the indiscriminate or excessive removal, large-scale, clear-cutting and destruction of trees and to control, regulate and prevent conditions which cause an increase in stormwater run-off, sedimentation, soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, air or noise pollution or inhibit aquifer recharge or impair the ambiance or physical appearance of a neighborhood."
However, this ordinance, and a similar one in the borough, apply primarily to existing residential properties and exempt new, larger-scale development, which has the greatest impact. Though the purpose is clearly stated, the actual protections in the ordinance are weak, especially when compared to some other towns in New Jersey and the United States.
For example, Princeton does not have an ordinance that requires replanting when trees are cut. Replanting is a key requirement of the more effective ordinances elsewhere. Other key provisions of these ordinances limit the percentage of land that can be cleared and/or the number of trees that can be destroyed to avoid denuding properties. These are not outright bans on tree removal but allow for specific criteria that must be considered before an applicant can proceed. This makes the decision process less arbitrary and more respectful of a key resource.
Some have argued that only ancient woodlands need such protection. That mindset may have been acceptable in the past. Woodlands less than 75 years old have trees of considerable size and help to ameliorate continual development. Even replanting of new trees, though important for the future, will not match the value of the old ones for many years.
On Sept. 5, at 7:30 p.m. at Borough Hall, the university's application will come before the Planning Board. It is hoped that they will think "out of the box," with creative design to greatly limit the number of trees to be cut. This could include recommendations by the Site Plan Review Advisory Board to have a parking garage to limit black-topped areas, as well as moving the commendable university plan to have a geothermal well site to an area devoid of trees as well as reforestation. There should be mandatory tree planting relating to size and number, with formulas provided by organizations such as Tree City USA.
Princeton needs a more effective tree/woodland ordinance including the features indicated above. This should be acted on soon before more woodlands are clear-cut. We can do better and if not here, where?
Grace Sinden
Ridgeview Circle
PrincetonUniversity's 'service' should begin at home
To the editor:
Wait a minute! Princeton University is about to slay a thousand or more trees, on West Avenue, beside the Nature Preserve, along Alexander Road, for graduate housing? How can this be?We read drought headlines daily. Homeowners watch the browning of expansive lawns, expensive shrubs and flowers. Whole fields of corn shrivel, seared to the color of camels, appropriate in this new desert. Trees along Princeton streets and in Princeton woods curl leaves that crisp and drop in unreal numbers. I just walked through calf-high noisy leaves in a local woods. This in August!
Trees transpire. That moisture births clouds. Clouds bring rain. No trees, no rain. And no birds' nests, butterfly havens, mushroom sites, mammal shelter.
Whatever happened to town/gown coalition? A festival does not co-operation prove. Obviously, treasures of this town are expendable, when the university decides it's time to build anew.
Woodrow Wilson proclaimed, "Princeton in the nation's service." Service begins at home. These halls of learning where students learned stewardship and statesmanship now foster greed. People could major in exploitation.
Is the university not satisfied with their destruction of Princeton Nurseries lands? Those towering windrows of blue-green conifers are hostage not only to the 220 "high-end units" of Barclay Square, along Mapleton Road, but also to 2.9 million square feet of office space. The deification of concrete - just what our region needs!
This is a town where residents march against garages and for deer. Are there no advocates for trees?
A friend sends this quote from a 2000 Princeton University commencement speech: "Society becomes great when men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit." How ironic. This very university proposes to sever trees under which we will never sit nor walk.
Carolyn Foote Edelmann
Salem Court
West Windsor
Return to top
Council challenged to find middle path
To the editor:
Determined to bring some greater measure of comfort and prosperity to the inhabitants of their towns and counties than would come from unguided happenstance, local officials everywhere dedicate themselves to sifting through and analyzing reams of advice and professional studies, both solicited and unsolicited, as well as their own ideas, when making decisions that affect the public.
In West Windsor, local officials are facing enormous pressure from two conflicting constituencies. One wants us to encourage commercial construction, as much as possible as soon as possible, on the assumption that this is the only way to stem the increase in local property taxes. The other wants us to limit new construction because that is the only way to control traffic, giving ourselves ammunition with which to oppose regional pressure to widen our local roads and jeopardize the character and safety of our neighborhoods.
Our challenge is to find a middle path. With patience and creativity we will meet the challenge. Just watch us.
Alison Miller
Council President
West Windsor Township
Bring open minds to bypass process
To the editor:
Partners' Roundtable for the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement is part of a new plan for solving a difficult problem. Representatives from community groups, environmental and transportation organizations, businesses (both small and as large as the Sarnoff Corp.), Princeton University and governments (local, county and state) are working together to find an acceptable solution to the traffic problems in the area.
Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman ordered an EIS when it was clear that the Environmental Assessment of the proposed Millstone Bypass lacked sufficient study and data to satisfy all parties, including the federal government, which would partly fund this project.
The original EA did not account for the large increase in development at the Sarnoff property, nor did those who crafted it know that Princeton University would propose to buy part of the Sarnoff property. Furthermore, the EA did not account for the possibility of a bus rapid transit system. Sarnoff has proposed designating a right-of-way for such a system, and the Central Jersey Transportation Forum is studying its feasibility for the Route 1 corridor. Such factors do make a difference.
