Public Scoping Forum

ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FORUM ON THE PENNS NECK AREA EIS

Selections from the Public Comments

Original Announcement of Scoping Forum (held December 4, 2001)

Organizations

Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions: Barbara Simpson

Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition, Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment

Princeton Environmental Commission: Anthony Lunn,

Princeton Borough Traffic and Transportation Committee: Phyllis Teitelbaum

Sierra Club: Laura Lynch

Sensible Transportations Options Partnership: Jean Mahoney

Sensible Transportation Options Partnership: Dean Ritts, Civil/Environmental Engineer

Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust: Patrick Lyons

West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives: Paula McGuire

Elected Officials

Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed and Township Mayor Phyllis Marchand

Princeton Borough Council: Wendy Benchley

Residents

Charles Ascher, West Windsor

Alan Goodheart, Princeton

Lincoln Hollister, Princeton

Sarah Hollister, Princeton

Peggy Killmer, Princeton

Nantanee Koppstein, West Windsor

Richard Lidz, West Windsor

Sandra Shapiro, West Windsor

Marsha Smith, West Windsor

Pete Weale, West Windsor

Response Document from Rutgers Vorhees Policy Institute to Questions Posed at Forum

News Reports

West Windsor-Plainsboro News

Trenton Times Report on Forum

Princeton Packet Report on Forum


Organizations

Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions

Comments submitted at the Environmental Scoping Forum and Open House on the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement Study.

Good Evening, I am Barbara Simpson, Project Director with the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions. ANJEC is a statewide non-profit organization that informs and assists municipal environmental commissions and interested citizens on how to protect and preserve the natural resources of the Garden State. Municipal Environmental Commissions are local advocates for the environment and are involved in a variety of activities, including maintaining the database of environmental resources for their municipality, informing planning boards and zoning boards on impacts from proposed development, communicating local concerns to state agencies, etc. ANJEC works for environmental commissions at the state level to ensure that state regulations and laws do in fact protect our environment. Over the last decade ANJEC has been a strong supporter of the State Plan and regularly attends the State Planning Commission meetings because we see the multiple benefits of coordinated planning in the most densely populated state in the nation.

ANJEC advocates protecting the natural resources from negative impacts of a proposed project. Given the 5 minute limit, we will focus our attention on the State Plan since other local groups will be commenting on the potential environmental impacts.

Hundreds of public meeting hours have been spent on the State Plan to improve coordination between state, regional and local plans. One of the major goals of the State Plan is to coordinate planning at all levels of government from the bottom (i.e local government) to the top (i.e. state agencies) and even sideways to adjacent municipalities or regions. New Jersey is at a critical point in planning for future transportation infrastructure. The EPA in its 2001 technical report on "Interactions Between Landuse, Transportation, and Environmental Quality" states that vehicle miles traveled in the United States increased by 63% between 1980-1997 - more than 3 times the population growth during this period. This statistic points to our over-reliance on single occupancy vehicle. Today's public hearing is to receive input on the range of solutions to be considered in preparing the EIS. The study group should consider the section in the State Plan devoted to transportation planning while preparing the EIS study. The DOT Commissioner or his representative sits on the State Planning Commission and was present when these statewide transportation policies were written and adopted. Of the 24 statewide transportation policies in the State Plan, I would like to review the most pertinent to planning for the Penns Neck Area.

Transportation Policy 2-Public Transportation Priorities: calls for funding of public transit projects that provide greater accessibility to rail and bus service and connect developed areas that are under served by mass transit and promote development that is conducive to mass transit services. We should be connecting the dots of development by mass transit service.

Transportation Policy 4 ­Integration of Land Use and Transportation Planning: states the importance of linking land use planning to transportation planning. This policy calls for reducing consumption of land and increasing the efficiency of transportation infrastructure, supporting public transportation systems and other alternatives to the automobile, reducing total vehicle miles traveled, and reducing the overall consumption of energy resources for transportation purposes.

Transportation Policy 5-Transportation and Environmental Resource Protection: Coordinate transportation planning with environmental resource planning. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a project on the environment should be fully understood at the planning stage so that these features will be protected during the construction phase.

Transportation Policy 7: Transportation and Energy Conservation: The intent of this policy is to reduce energy consumption by encouraging public transportation systems, developing more efficient vehicles, and reducing vehicle miles traveled through efficient land development patterns.

Transportation Policy 13: Mobility and Access:- Emphasizes the movement of people rather than the movement of more vehicles by investing in public transportation, and alternate transit modes such as car and vanpooling, bicycling, and pedestrian mobility.

Transportation Policy 15: Provision of Public Transportation Services:- expand public transportation services to areas of existing and planned high-density development to provide opportunities to exploit mass transportation systems.

The sum total of all the State Plan policies on transportation systems mean fewer single occupancy vehicles on our roads and more mass transit options to riders. The highest priority for planning is to maintain and repair our existing transportation network rather than build more roads which will lead to further traffic congestion.

Many other statewide policies in the State Plan would be useful to consider when designing this project such as statewide policies on water and air resources. ANJEC encourages the committee to complete a thorough review of the State Plan to ensure that the EIS is consistent with the State Planning policies and goals. Additionally, the State Planning Commission should review the scope of the project to ensure that expenditure of state dollars on an infrastructure project is consistent with the goals of the State Planning Act. The State Plan is a valuable guide for how New Jersey should grow.

Once this project is built, it will last for decades and have a significant impact on this region. Please keep an open mind and consider all options carefully and in context with regional plans. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments at this scoping meeting.

Barbara Simpson can be reached at simpsonanjec@aol.com for further information on these comments.


Back to top


Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition

Go to: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment

 

Back to top


PRINCETON ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNSHIP HALL
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540

Comments Submitted by
THE PRINCETON ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
to the "Environmental Scoping Forum on the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Study"
held by NJDOT/Rutgers Transportation Policy Institute

December 4, 2001

My name is Anthony Lunn. I am chair of the Princeton Environmental Commission, a municipally-appointed body constituted by both Princeton Borough and Princeton Township for environmental matters.

While this Scoping Forum is a positive effort to obtain community input, it is seriously flawed. It is being held before a proper framing of the problem to be addressed, and before even a summary presentation of alternatives. A "Synopsis of Background Information" was provided at the very last minute by Rutgers for DOT, too late to be of use. I found it just yesterday. Yet there have been months to prepare for this. Proper procedures need to be followed.

Our commission wishes to make several important comments.

I. The transportation problems in the study area are caused by many factors. These include unplanned regional overdevelopment and sole reliance on single-person cars. The many problems include inadequate northwest-southeast travel options, a dangerous mix of high-speed travel on route 1 combined with local stores along the same road, and lack of ways to route through traffic around Princeton.

II. The types of solutions that should be considered have to await a proper problem definition. But they will need to include: ways to increase the occupancy of vehicles above one person per car; bicycles, public transport, buses, and jitneys. Solutions cannot just be more roads for more cars. Mercer County already exceeds federally allowable ozone levels, and is not allowed to have more single-occupancy vehicles.

I shall now address comments on the so-called Preferred Alignment of the Millstone Bypass, as this is apparently still "on the table", and is the only proposal to date.

The Millstone Bypass would have significant adverse impacts on the environment. These include, and are not limited to:

· noise impact on our most important local recreation area, the D&R Canal State Park.
· potential pollution, from vehicle exhaust and runoff, of the Millstone River and D&R canal, used for drinking water.
· environmental impact on the Millstone River, due to the extreme closeness of the proposed road. Damage to its habitat, its wildlife populations, and to its recreational benefits.
· severe impact on the most heavily used and enjoyed recreational park in the area, which is the D&R Canal Park, including noise and visual disturbances.

I submit to the public record the Environmental Commission's document: Response to the Noise section of the draft EA, dated January 8, 2001. This actually measures the quiet level of sound in the D&R Canal Park, where the loudest sounds can be the singing of birds. If the Millstone Bypass were built, just a few hundred feet away, the sound level would rise, and would change from bird song to roaring trucks.

Actions requested:

1) The Environmental Commission requests inclusion in the next Scoping Session, to comment on project alternatives once these become defined.

2) The problem to be addressed must be defined by the Roundtable. Effective solutions cannot even be conceived until this is done.

3) Transportation problems in the area cannot be solved simply by building roads. They involve regional planning, provision of public transport, and other factors. Just building a road will create as many problems as it solves.

4) One entity, the NJDOT, cannot alone solve transportation problems in this region. Additional authorities, both public and private, must be involved in order to develop effective solutions. These will include regional planning agreements, major enhancement of public transport, and travel demand management by area employers. The need for this broader scope must be addressed in the roundtable discussions.

5) If a road is advocated, it must not be along or near the D&R Canal Park or the Millstone River, for the above-cited environmental reasons. Depression of Route 1 and a "frontage" road are promising possibilities. The already-built major overpass at Alexander Road should be used fully before more are built. Proposals must protect the character of the district, with its carefully established tree-lined boulevards and historic features.

Anthony C. Lunn
Chair, Princeton Environmental Commission

Back to top


PRINCETON BOROUGH TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Borough Hall
Princeton, NJ 08542

COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FORUM
for the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Study being conducted by the Rutgers Transportation Policy Institute and NJDOT

December 4, 2001

My name is Phyllis Teitelbaum. I am speaking on behalf of the Princeton Borough Traffic and Transportation Committee. This committee is an official body, appointed by the Princeton Borough Council to advise it on issues that affect traffic and transportation in Princeton. The committee's members, who come from all walks of life, include residents, merchants, and people who have special expertise in traffic and transportation issues.

Princeton Borough has been included as part of the primary study area for the Penns Neck Area EIS. Therefore, an analysis of traffic problems in Princeton Borough is highly relevant to the EIS.

The Princeton Borough Traffic and Transportation Committee is very concerned that Princeton Borough is already burdened by the heavy flow of traffic that comes from Route 1 into Princeton and that then travels through the center of Princeton on its way to other destinations. This through traffic causes extremely long back-ups at stoplights, creates grid-lock on Princeton's main street, greatly increases air pollution, and decreases the quality of life in Princeton. Many Princeton intersections are already classified as category F, and on the main street, it often takes 20 minutes to drive 6 blocks. These traffic problems in Princeton Borough are as serious as are the serious traffic problems in the Penns Neck area. They deserve as much concern from the New Jersey Department of Transportation as do the traffic problems in Penns Neck.

What is actually needed is a bypass that would take through traffic AROUND Princeton, rather than into its center. The Committee realizes that a Princeton bypass is probably beyond the purview of the Penns Neck EIS. But the Committee thought it was important to mention the need for a Princeton bypass because, in the absence of a Princeton bypass, we believe that the New Jersey Department of Transportation at the very least has an obligation not to make the traffic situation in Princeton worse. A necessary condition for selecting any road-based action should be that a new road not worsen traffic congestion in one area while trying to alleviate it in another area.

There are several ways in which a road-based action by NJDOT could have an adverse effect on Princeton:

1) A road-based action could worsen the traffic situation in Princeton by increasing the total volume of traffic that travels through Princeton. (This was a serious flaw of the NJDOT "preferred Millstone bypass alignment.")

An increase in the total volume of through traffic in Princeton is unacceptable, since the road system in Princeton is already at capacity. Bypasses are desirable, providing they start and end in relatively unpopulated areas. However, a bypass that ends in an area of high population and high traffic density is a bypass in name only. It is, in fact, a funnel and should not be permissible under any reasonable roadway design standards.

2) A road-based action could worsen the traffic situation in Princeton by maintaining the present volume of through traffic but distributing it in an unacceptable way. At the moment, the traffic from Route 1 is carried by three roads--Alexander Road, Washington Road, and Harrison Street--with an almost equal distribution of traffic on each. It is essential that all three of these roads remain open, and that the distribution of traffic remain roughly equally divided among them. If any of these three roads is closed or partially closed, the remaining two roads and the residential areas into which they flow will experience acute traffic problems, resulting in degradation of the quality of life there. The NJDOT "preferred Millstone bypass alignment" would have caused this unacceptable situation on Harrison Street.

In conclusion, the Princeton Borough Traffic and Transportation Committee urges the New Jersey Department of Transportation to make certain that any road-based action does not make the traffic situation in Princeton worse, either by increasing the total volume of traffic that is funneled into Princeton or by altering the distribution of the traffic among Alexander Road, Washington Road, and Harrison Street.

Phyllis Teitelbaum
Member, Princeton Borough Traffic and Transportation Committee

Back to top


Sierra Club Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Forum Comments

Prepared by Laura Lynch, Conservation Co-Chair, Bill Wolfe, Policy Director, and Jeff Tittel, Chapter Director, New Jersey Chapter, Sierra Club

The New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club is concerned about the potential environmental impact of additional roads and other impervious surfaces within the EIS Primary Study Area. The avoidance of negative environmental impacts is of utmost importance. Environmental data should be collected in a strict, unbiased manner. Data from the Millstone Bypass Environmental Assessment of 2000 should be re-evaluated if it is to be used at all. Because DMJM/Harris has produced two faulty environmental assessments in the past (one for the Millstone Bypass, and one for the proposed Mercer County Airport expansion that was rejected for inadequacy), the Sierra Club recommends that a different environmental consultant be used for the Penns Neck Area EIS.

The scope of the Penns Neck Area EIS should include the preservation of the water quality of the Millstone River, the Little Bear Brook, and the Delaware and Raritan Canal. Drinking water for many residents of several counties in central New Jersey comes from the confluence of the Millstone
River, the Delaware and Raritan Canal, and the Raritan River. These bodies of water are breeding grounds for fish and sites for recreational fishing. Pollution in the water would be detrimental to all aquatic life and to any who consume fish caught in the polluted water. There should be no additional runoff from roads or other impervious surfaces. Pollutant levels in these bodies of water should not increase from current levels, nor should flooding potential increase.

Any proposed projects should not result in habitat fragmentation. Most open space and wildlife habitat in central New Jersey is in small parcels, which isolates populations of animals and plants and restricts their habitats. Proposed projects should result in the preservation of open space and of the Millstone River and Little Bear Brook watersheds. Over one hundred species of animals and plants have been identified in the Millstone River and Delaware and Raritan Canal greenways. Of these
species, the river otter is rare and the northern harrier endangered; their habitats should not be disrupted.

Any alternatives considered should reduce airborne pollutants in order to bring and keep the Primary and Secondary Study Areas into compliance with EPA air quality regulations. Single occupancy vehicles and vehicle miles traveled should be reduced, while the use of mass transit should be encouraged. Transportation control measures as recommended by the 1990 Clean Air Act should be studied as alternatives to additional roads. Such measures include: programs for improved public transit; high occupancy vehicle lanes,;employer-based transportation management plans; trip reduction
ordinances; traffic flow improvement programs; fringe and transportation corridor parking for high occupancy vehicle programs; limits of restrictions on vehicles use in specified areas; high-occupancy vehicle and shared ride programs; bicycle and pedestrian facilities, lanes, and restrictions; bicycle storage, travel lanes, and related improvements and programs; control of idling vehicles; employer-sponsored flexible work schedules; facilitation of non-automobile, high-occupancy vehicles, and mass transit travel; pedestrian and non-motorized vehicles, paths, and areas; and voluntary retirement of aging light-duty vehicles.

The official notice for the Penns Neck Area EIS Scoping Forum states that the purpose of the EIS is to "examine potential solutions to the problem of mobility in the Route 1/Penns Neck Area and its environs, and the respective impacts of these solutions." While traffic problems are what prompted the need for an EIS, it is important to remember that the environmental impacts of any solutions could have far-reaching and long-lasting effects on the Penns Neck area. The Sierra Club encourages
the New Jersey Department of Transportation to apply strict environmental standards to any proposed solutions to mobility problems in the EIS Primary and Secondary Study Areas.

Attached were the following two documents:

A. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Sierra Club
10 September 2001

Goal: Preserve water quality of Millstone River, Little Bear Brook, D&R Canal
Objective: No additional runoff from roads and other impervious surfaces;
Objective: Pollutant levels in water should not increase from current levels; a decrease would be preferable.

Goal: Flooding potential should not increase
Objective: No more impervious surfaces.

Goal: Improve air quality
Objective: Reduce airborne pollutants in order to bring region into EPA attainment;
Objective: Reduce automobile idle time;
Objective: Reduce number of single-occupant automobiles and increase mass transit.

Goal: No habitat fragmentation. Open space preservation
Objective: Solution should not involve taking of open space;
Objective: Preserve aesthetics of waterways;
Objective: Preserve wildlife habitat; don't create more edge habitat.

Goal: Preserve watersheds
Objective: No impact on watershed;
Objective: Flooding should remain as is or decrease;
Objective: Water quality should remain as is or improve.

Goal: D&R Canal should not be affected
Objective: Preserve water quality;
Objective: Preserve sight lines;
Objective: Do not increase noise level.

 

B. Penns Neck Area EIS Partners Roundtable Goals and Objectives,
24 September 2001

These are the goals and objectives that the Roundtable listed at the 24 September 2001 meeting. This list was later edited by TPI. Listed below are the original, unedited goals and objectives.

Land Use, Economic Development, and Smart Growth

discourage strip malls along Route 1
why does market take precedent over community needs?
make sure development is maintained around train and bus stations
use traffic calming
use state authority under access management act to support local smart growth strategies
identify realistic expectation of what can and cannot be done
consider municipal land use zoning
incorporate capacity analysis in formulating action plan
conform to State Plan
avoid regional decisions that would disproportionately raise property taxes
use grayfields

Environment, Natural Resources, and Open Space

consider multiple environmental media
include Sierra Club goals and objectives (attached)
upgrade impervious surfaces to make them more environmentally favorable
preserve wetlands
do not increase overall noise or light
open space, greenbelt, and other environmental resources must be considered

Neighborhood Character and Quality of Life

balance of impacts (no impact on one neighborhood at the expense of another)
preservation and enhancement of existing landmarks
prevent non-local traffic impacts
define "quality of life"
maintain viability of downtown business communities
improve neighborhood quality by ensuring that traffic travels on appropriate roads
clearly map and identify neighborhoods such as Berrien City and Bedford Estates
bicycle access
reduce frustrations related to travel in the area
put a time frame on project (i.e. 10 years into future) to keep frustrations reduced
provide landscaping, beautification
provide human-scale improvements
ensure pride in end result
preserve and enhance neighborhood integrity
return east-west roads to residential use
school safety

Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources

no impact on Elm Allee as historic entrance to Princeton and West Windsor
avoid disturbance of archaeological sites along Millstone River and Little Bear Brook
no impact on historical sites (see sites listed in Problem Statement)
avoid negative proximity impacts on Delaware and Raritan Canal
recreational use of Millstone River

Process and Public Participation

more forums for public involvement
better access and publicity for web site, community participation in it
education of public
goals and needs of young people
facilitate cross-communication between agencies, groups, etc.
educate each other in what we can and cannot do
innovation
treat every opinion equally, regardless of money, land owned, income, etc.

Back to top

Comments by Jean A. Mahoney,
Sensible Transportation Options Partnership

Comments at the Scoping Forum for the Penns Neck Area EIS, 12/4/01

My concern today is the same concern that I had 6 years ago, when the plan for the so-called "Millstone Bypass" was announced by NJDOT. Although it was modified in minor ways to address concerns about the D&R Canal, this project has not changed much in its design or intent. My concern is that this harmless, 2-lane "preferred alignment", as it is described, is really a major highway in disguise. An extension of the NJ Turnpike!

This project, depicted as a roadway starting at the West Windsor railroad bridge, and replacing Rt. 571 as we now know it, before it connects up with Washington Rd. near Lake Carnegie, is really part of a segmented project, which will become a major artery linking the NJ Turnpike with Route 206, allowing traffic to bypass New York City on its way toward the NY Thruway.

Combining the Hightstown Bypass, which is now built and in use, and is much larger in size and scope than other roads in the area, with the current Route 571 in West Windsor, which will be widened, according to NJDOT, and then connecting with the "preferred alignment" of the Millstone Bypass, we will have an extension of the NJ Turnpike, which can carry automobile and truck traffic via Harrison St. to Routes 206, 287, and beyond,on its way to the NY Thruway.

It is beyond comprehension that anyone would wish for this highway to be built. Apparently, the citizens of the affected communities and even the major landowners, Sarnoff and Princeton University, who have spoken in favor of the project, are being taken in by NJDOT propaganda, and are overlooking the true nature of this highway project.

Some members of some of the communities that will be affected by this alignment have been working for the past 6 years to find sensible transportation options that will satisfy all the parties concerned. Because of this activity, an Environmental Impact Statement is being carried out by the Rutgers Transportation Policy Institute in partnership with Helen Neuhaus and Associates, under contract with NJDOT. We have high hopes that this process will yield results that will be beneficial to all, which will eliminate the need for this major highway slated to extend from the Turnpike through our towns. We urge TPI and HNA to do a thorough job, taking their time to carry out all the studies and to do the right thing.

We were told last April that the "preferred alignment of the Millstone Bypass" is "off the table". Later, we were told that it is not exactly off the table, but that it carries no greater weight than any other alignments that might come out of the study. And yet, yesterday we saw signs erected on Washington Rd. on both sides of Route 1 suggesting that people call the Governor and say they "want the bypass". It would seem that the message has gone out to the communities that we are still disputing whether this one alignment should be built, and we are ignoring the EIS process, which is now taking place.

Lest there be any question in anyone's mind about the popularity of the "preferred alignment", I would like to provide evidence of the degree of disfavor that alignment has found with citizens of the area. I have with me copies of petitions that have been signed by over 2,500 residents of the surrounding communities, and I would like to enter them into the public record for this EIS. In addition, I would like to provide copies of over 1,000 letters that were sent to Commissioner Weinstein in Spring 2000 requesting that an EIS be carried out on the Millstone Bypass project. Although the name has been changed to "Penns Neck Area EIS", we are assuming that the EIS being carried out now is the one ordered on this project by Governor Whitman last November.

In conclusion, let me again state my concern, which should be the concern of all the landowners and citizens of the communities through which this highway will pass and which will be affected by it, and that is that the so-called "Millstone Bypass" is really a major highway in disguise. With that information, we should all take a long hard look and ask ourselves whether the immense loss to our communities, our neighborhoods, and our quality of life is really worth it.

Back to top

Comments by Dean Ritts, Civil/Environmental Engineer,
Sensible Transportation Options Partnership

As a civil/environmental engineer, I know very well of the deteriorating nature of our transportation infrastructure. Also, as an environmental engineer that provides consulting services to the industry of this state, I am fully aware of the economic need for development. I help my industrial clients evaluate the environmental impacts of their processes and expansions of their business. I assist them to comply with the New Jersey's complicated environmental regulations. My clients face great scrutiny with regards to their activities and their potential to impact the environment.

Which leads me to my point. A transportation project of the magnitude that is proposed for this area is going to have an environmental impact. The EIS must, I repeat must, do a thorough job of evaluating the potential impacts of the alternatives and also evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of the proposed mitigation measures for each alternative.

The EIS must evaluate the alternatives in a manner that impartially evaluates the environmental issues. The draft EA did not do this. The draft EA selectively used data to support the "preferred alignment". The evaluation in the draft EA did not include an evaluation of the proposed mitigation measures of environmental impacts. Some proposed alternatives in the draft EA did not have any firm mitigation measures. If one of my clients told the State, "We are going to build a new process and after it is running we will figure out what pollution control is necessary", they would need a lawyer, not me. During the EIS make sure that the alternatives are fairly evaluated and that they have mitigation measures for the environmental impacts.

How can this be done? Make sure that when each alternative is evaluated, that what is a negative impact for one alternative is not ignored in the report if it is negative for another.

Another issue of concern is, To what environmental standard is the project going to be held? Current air and water quality standards? I hope that our government can do better. Industry in New Jersey is already being encouraged and, yes, even required to do better than the existing standards by our environmental agencies. NJ water quality regulations are being revised. Total Maximum Daily Loads of pollutants are being developed for our rivers and streams, including Little Bear Brook and the Millstone River. Some industries are being issued wastewater discharge permits with standards that are tighter than those they had previously although the regulations have not yet changed. Other industries understand that their long-term production activities are going to be required to meet increasingly more protective environmental standards.

I encourage our DOT to at least do as well as industry and recognize that a long term project of this size, complexity and potential environmental impact be designed not just to meet today's environmental standards but to meet tomorrows environmental standards. I hope that our DOT can do better than industry and set the standard of good engineering practice.

For example, this project should seek to meet NJ water quality objectives to have no further degradation of the State's waters, like the Millstone River. Furthermore, stormwater runoff is recognized by the EPA to be the main contributor to water pollution. It is quite stunning then, that the DOT determined in the draft EA that the "preferred alignment" will have no impact on the Millstone River even though critical water quality pollutants are predicted to double.

Poor science used in the draft EA contributed to such conclusions. Outdated stormwater quality models were used. Old surface water quality data was evaluated. No water sample from the Millstone was collected for the draft EA. These and other such errors found in the draft EA can not be repeated in the EIS. Do the proper science. Do the science properly.

If it is not done right and a bad project is built, who pays the price? Who pays the cost of the impact if the project is not done right? Not just the environment, but citizens and industry. Citizens will bear the burden of a poorly designed transportation project. Industry will bear the burden of meeting tighter point source discharge regulations to protect water quality because we continue to design transportation systems that maximize the ease of construction at the expense of the environment.

There is no doubt this is an extremely challenging project. That is why we encourage DOT to become creative and design a transportation alternative that solves more problems than three traffic lights from US 1 restricting traffic flow.

Back to top

Comments by Patrick Lyons,
Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust

I'm Patrick Lyons and I live in Princeton borough. I became involved in this process over five years ago when it came to my attention that a potential road project, then called the Millstone Bypass, was about to threaten one of the most unique and beautiful vistas in this section of the country. I'm referring to the elm lined roadway which has since become known as the Washington Road Elm Alée.

Five years have passed and although this special roadway and those unique trees are still standing, they are no less threatened today than they were then. I would like to make sure that any threat to them from a road project or any governmental action is permanently stopped.One of the charges of the scoping session is to identify special and unique areas which warrant special attention. Some of these are:

It is vitally important that these sites and areas be listed as known constraints before any planning or alternatives are considered. No amount of mediation or trade-offs can ever fully replace these
irreplaceable environmental historical and cultural resources. No plan should be considered that will in any way negatively impact these sites.

What would I like to see if a road project will truly be an improvement which will remain viable for many years to come?

I would like to see any options which will reduce our dependence on single occupancy vehicles be considered first. If it is shown by verifiable, independent data that a road project would be necessary then I see as the only option a plan which would depress US route one beneath Washington Road so it remains a local connector road, with whatever enhancements would make it an intersection as handsome as the elm allée it connects to. In addition, a grade-separated interchange with the smallest footprint possible between Washington Road and Harrison Street which would enable all the turning functions now performed by those intersections with a parallel access road connecting Harrison Street, Washington Road and possibly Alexander Road. This new construction would maintain the three independent access roads into and out of Princeton Township and Borough and would not have any negative physical or visual impacts on any sites mentioned above and certainly would have nothing built along the Millstone River.

I characterized the plan five years ago for the then proposed Millstone Bypass as something designed by someone with an advanced degree in "ugly" and I have since seen nothing which would dissuade me from that original view. My first visit to Princeton occurred about twenty years ago when a friend of my wife and I, who unfortunately has since died, drove us from New York City to here. She said, "I'm going to take you in by the lovely scenic way." We then drove down Washington Road from US 1. I hope that any thing we do to change this area would still be able to be described in that same way.

Back to top

Comments submitted by Paula McGuire, West Windsor Resident
West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives

The following comes from me wearing my EIS Roundtable and Problem Statement
Committee hats.

I would like to see the EIS process really come into its own. At the beginning, it promised a unique and democratic way to help solve problems associated with the Penns Neck Area. Among other things it promised "conflict resolution," but to date no such activity has taken place.

One of problems has been the persistent discussion of the "final alignment of the so-called Millstone Bypass. The quarrel is ongoing between proponents and adversaries of the Bypass. These groups are said to represent the opposing views of West Windsor (for) and Princeton (against), though
opinions cannot be so clearly labeled; for example, many people in West Windsor oppose the Bypass. These opinions must have been clearly understood by the Project Team in their initial interviews, as well as in remarks made at the Roundtable or in other discussions. In my view, the Project Team should have from the outset attempted to defuse this argument by helping to
bring groups of different opinions together and by underlining the process that promises to look at ALL alternatives to the transportation situation of the area.

Instead, it appears that the quarrel has tainted the process. Instead of naming the former Millstone Bypass as merely one of the alternatives, in the official summary document describing what would be presented at the Scoping Forum today the Project Team outlined in detail that alternative, thus giving
it undue prominence. All other alternatives were only briefly listed. The Team was certainly aware that the Problem Statement committee specifically rejected the idea of spelling out in its document the history of the Millstone Bypass as unfair and biased. Can the Project Team explain its action?

Furthermore, the Forum summary statement lists certain categories of alternatives that "have been identified. Since the Problem Statement and the Goals and Objectives have not yet been completed, I believe the Project Team has jumped the gun in mentioning categories that are not yet final--especially since much necessary data are yet to be supplied. Again, can the Project Team explain its action?

Such actions raise questions about the objectivity of the process and undermine the confidence of those participating in the Roundtable. It is to be hoped that other questions about the range of participation of the Roundtable members will be answered in the near future. Until all these
questions will have been answered, the value of the public participation in the process is severely compromised and misrepresented. In the meantime, serious thought to all aspects of the process should be brought to the "conflict resolution table." When will this happen?

The following comments come from me wearing my area resident hat:

I have lived on Washington Road in Penns Neck for over 30 years. There is certainly evidence of increased traffic in Penns Neck, in West Windsor on many roads, and in the Central Jersey area as a whole. I am concerned about any proposal to alleviate mobility in the area that does not try to envision as many alternatives as possible--including mass transit, traffic-calming methods, and other means to reduce auto dependency. All alternatives must consider impacts any one solution would have on any other.

For example, in considering whether or not to remove traffic lights on Route 1 in the Penns Neck Area, the impact on connecting roads, new congestion points, added numbers of automobiles, and the environment must be thoroughly studied. I am very concerned about removing the lights: they
cause a much needed slowdown in traffic speed, and they offer safety at the Route 1/Washington Road intersection. If they are removed on Route 1, they would surely be replaced on an overpass that would cause even more traffic backups.

The traffic lights also allow Washington Road to be an important connecting link to Route 1 north and south and to Princeton and beyond. Whatever alternatives are considered, I support keeping Washington Road open as a local road serving a direct and necessary route between West Windsor and Princeton. Closing off Washington Road would create a Route 1 speedway that would serve to isolate Penns Neck as a cul de sac and at the same time not improve traffic conditions on other roads in West Windsor, Princeton, or the rest of the area.

Washington Road is a vital connector for the whole area. It is the direct route for many to the Princeton Junction railroad station. It is the direct route to the Medical Center at Princeton. So far, there is no concrete evidence to show that emergency vehicles are not able to perform their function in a timely manner. From the noise of their sirens speeding by my house, I can attest to their unimpeded progress up and down the road.

My family moved to Washington Road because it is in the middle of a comfortable, older area built on a human scale and because it offered wonderful and convenient access to many other areas. I would not like to see that change.

I hope other citizens of Penns Neck and West Windsor appreciate the treasure they have and will not try to devalue it in an ill-advised attempt to sacrifice it for tiny local gain. Projections show that all traffic in the area will not improve. Let,s try to find the best way to not make it worse.

Back to top

Elected Officials
Township of Princeton, NJ
369 Witherspoon Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Tel.: 609-924-5176 Fax: 609-279-1640		   Borough of Princeton, NJ
One Monument Drive, P.O. Box 390, Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Tel.: 609-924-3118 Fax:609-924-9714

PRESENTATION by the Hon. Marvin R. Reed, Mayor of the Borough of Princeton, NJ, and the Hon. Phyllis Marchand, Mayor of the Township of Princeton, NJ, before the Scoping Forum and Open House for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the US 1 Penns Neck Area, at the Township Municipal Building, 271 Clarksville Rd., West Windsor, NJ, on Tuesday, December 4, 2001.

The issue of traffic in the Princeton, Penns Neck, Princeton Junction area of Central New Jersey goes back more than 60 years.

In the 1930's -- in the middle of the Depression when funds were scarce -- the New Jersey State Legislature promised Central Jersey that a new State Highway would be built from east of Hightstown to north of Princeton. It would bypass both town centers. It would relieve through car and truck traffic from both busy downtowns.

For decades the dotted lines of this promised bypass appeared on all the gas company road maps. More importantly, it appeared on all official State maps and the Master Plans of all the municipalities through which it was intended to go as well as the towns that it was intended to relieve.

All the affected municipalities constructed their zoning, authorized new housing, and attracted new commercial development on the assumption that this promised State highway would be built.

Central Jersey grew. But, Central Jersey is still waiting for that promised bypass to handle the enormous growth in east-west traffic.

Years later -- in the 1950's when funds were more plentiful -- the U.S. federal government promised the people of Central Jersey that it also would do something about traffic growth. It said it would construct a new freeway paralleling an increasingly busy U.S. Highway No. 1.

That also has never happened.

The segment of I-95 mapped to go from the Scudder's Falls Bridge on the Delaware to I-287 in Piscataway was de-designated.

The federal funds for that segment were promised to be transferred to a widening of U.S. 1 (as a substitute for the I-95 link) and -- most significantly -- also to see that the long-promised East-West Highway (now call S-92) would relieve downtown Hightstown and downtown Princeton.

Some of that money has been used to widen U.S. One. That expenditure -- that widening -- makes Central Jersey ever more attractive for new commercial development, new housing development, and -- of course -- more auto traffic.

But, what happened to the I-95 money that was supposed to produce an S-92 all the way around Princeton? When will we ever get our relief that we were promised?

Why should more money be spent only to make our town's congestion worse?

That's the challenge the Princetons make today as we discuss the scope of the new Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Study. That's the challenge we from Princeton have made in the past. And, that's the challenge we will continue to make in the future -- vocally -- politically -- and legally -- to any future expenditures in Central New Jersey which fail to make good on past analysis, plans, and promises.

What's the point of rebuilding highways to relieve one bottleneck only to make congestion worse elsewhere?

Our complaints about past efforts are well known.

Previous environmental impact assessments on Route One projects ignored the rising congestion at key intersections of State Route 27 -- most notably our Alexander Rd./University Pl., Washington Rd., and Harrison St. intersections on our Nassau St. -- as well as the intersections of U.S. 206 at Route 27 and Ewing St. (the extension of Harrison St.)

Not only has Nassau St. and our local streets that parallel that State road become the alternate bypasses for north-south traffic in order to avoid an over-burdened Route One -- our east-west local streets are also becoming the alternate bypasses for the once promised S-92.

Princeton knows that there is going to be increased traffic in our region. We are not surprised when we see projections -- such as those recently promulgated by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) and the North Jersey Transportation --Planning Authority (NJTPA) in their joint Central Jersey Forum project -- which show that by the year 2020 there will be a 55% increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled within the 20 municipalities included in their special study.

We can swallow hard as we anticipate more congestion. What we cannot tolerate are less-than-adequate proposals that do not balance traffic on our three entry roadways and result in much greater congestion in one segment of our town at the expense of the other.

We are appalled when the Central Jersey Forum studies show that the three roads into our town from U.S. One already have a Volume/Capacity Ratio that's "Over Capacity." We massage our wounds when the URS Corporation tells the Forum that peak-hour congestion on the Alexander St., Washington Rd., and Harrison St. entries are congested for over two hours every day. Our sense of doom continues when the Forum tells us that none of the alternatives projected to date will change this congestion. It will not only get worse. It will spread to even more municipalities around us.

What is the point of coming up with limited solutions for the Penns Neck Area of Route One if conditions only get worse between now and the year 2020?

Princeton submits that the scope of any Environmental Impact Study must be broad enough to deal completely with all the Penns Neck/Princeton crossings -- Washington Road, Harrison Street and its Ewing St. extension, as well as Alexander Road. The new EIS study should recognize:

Princeton Township and Princeton Borough remain committed to participating in the Penns Neck EIS Partners Roundtable in developing reasonable alternatives and choosing recommended actions to overcome current and projected mobility problems in the area.

To that end, we wish to put into the record and share with others two studies by professional experts which our two municipalities and our Regional Planning Board commissioned to review inadequacies in past proposals.

First, let me [Mayor Reed of Princeton Borough] present a study by the Sam Schwartz Company, a recognized transportation consulting group in New York City, which reviewed for us Alternatives to the Millstone Bypass. We submit it in both printout and "Powerpoint" CD-ROM format.

Also, let me [Mayor Marchand of Princeton Twp.] present a review of the earlier Environmental Assessment prepared by the Resource Systems Group, Inc. of White River Junction, Vt. for what was then called the "Millstone Bypass"

Others later in the day will elaborate on these findings.

Thank you for this opportunity.

We look forward to participating further in a broadly scoped Environmental Impact Study of necessary intersection, cross-roadway, transit, and other inter-modal improvements along U. S. Route One and in our municipalities.

Back to top

Presentation by Wendy Benchley, Councilwoman of Princeton Borough on behalf of the members of Princeton Borough Council, before the Scoping Forum and Open House for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the US 1 Penns Neck Area, at the Township Municipal Building, 271 Clarksville Road, West Windsor, NJ, on Tuesday, December 4, 2001.

Mayor Reed and Mayor Marchand of Princeton Borough and Township submitted testimony this morning that outlined the history of the chaotic transportation planning in the central Jersey area that has occurred over the last decades. They also emphasized the importance of a broad scope for the Penns Neck EIS and enumerated vital details that should be a part of this study. The members of Princeton Borough Council are here tonight to endorse, with vigor, the joint statement of the mayors.

We would like to briefly emphasize a few general points about the scope and content of the EIS before going on to talk about Sam Schwartz's traffic and transportation analysis that the mayors mentioned to you this morning.

It is imperative that the EIS broaden its scope to the west to include Nassau St. and to the east to include the environs of Princeton Junction. The segmented approach to road building that has traditionally been used by NJDOT for east/west projects is illogical and destructive. Cars do not disappear when they reach the end of a new road. They impact the destination whether in Princeton or West Windsor.

The EIS should also include Transit and /or Travel Demand Management (TDM) techniques. As we know, from the research of the Central Jersey Forum, new roads will only help awhile. Most are projected to be in rush hour gridlock as soon as the asphalt hardens. We must use other methods to decrease the number of cars.

Finally, the EIS must be true to its mission ­ it must take seriously the impact of roads on our fragile historic sites, dwindling green space and worsening air quality. How could we, at the beginning of the 21st century, be so foolish as to think of building a road right along the banks of a river that is one of the last remaining untouched, natural, green places in central Jersey? The EIS, as required by federal law, must first and foremost protect the natural environment in the placement and design of roads. To design the road first and then try to mitigate the environmental consequences goes against the legality and spirit of an EIS.

Princeton takes the mandate of an EIS very seriously. Last year we appropriated funds to hire Sam Schwartz, a renowned and highly respected traffic and transportation consultant. Before starting his own consulting firm he served as New York City's Traffic Commissioner from 1982 to 1986 and First Deputy Commissioner for the New York City Department of Transportation from 1986 to 1990. His curriculum vitae are extensive, but the most important thing to know about Mr. Schwartz is that he combines superb engineering expertise with ingenuity and creativity. He thinks out of the box ­ unusual for many engineers - and that is what the Princetons wanted. We asked Mr. Schwartz to study this area and develop two or three plans that would accommodate NJDOT's main goal to eliminate the traffic lights on Rt. 1 and our goals to improve east/west traffic flow and protect historic and environmental features. We would like to emphasize some important elements of his plans. His integrative approach and use of flexible design standards are important tools that should be used in the EIS.

We are pleased to report that Mr. Schwartz developed plans that show there are a variety of ways to meet NJDOT's goals for the Route 1 corridor that were not included in the Millstone Bypass Environmental Assessment. His plans are not graven in stone. They are prudent and feasible alternative suggestions that should be part of the ongoing dialogue.

All the suggestions protect historic Penns Neck structures. All keep Washington Road open both ways for local traffic. All allow cars to access Route 1 going north and south from Washington Road. All use less land and require less miles of new road and are more protective of the environment. All distribute traffic equally on Alexander, Washington and Harrison. And, all remove traffic lights on Route 1 and facilitate east/west traffic flow across Route 1.

I would like to point out here that Mr. Schwartz's plans were developed before we knew there was to be any further expansion at the Sarnoff site. Sarnoff may need to build roads to service their development and, we suggest, these alternatives might be useful to them.

The alternatives were accomplished by using, as the engineers say, grade-separation techniques. We call them tunnels or underpasses, but whatever the name, they are basic, time-tested options of allowing one road to go over another. Grade separation was first used in 1860 in Central Park and is currently being used in other cities ­ including Trenton ­ where parks and plazas are built on top of depressed highways.

If this can be done in the inner city where hundreds of densely packed buildings must be protected; we can do it with Route 1 at Washington Road while protecting the historic buildings of Penns Neck. Instead of trucks and cars thundering by the front door of the first Baptist Church, there would be a street level park and Washington Road with two lanes of local east/west traffic. The noise and pollution of speeding traffic would be muffled below grade. Two years ago the NJDOT said this was not possible. The Schwartz report shows that not only is it possible, it is relatively simple to do with common engineering techniques.

The Schwartz report also suggests a variety of grade-separated solutions instead of a cloverleaf for the intersection at Route 1 and Harrison. These plans move traffic efficiently, save vast amounts of land and allow more space for the Eden Institute. A win-win situation for all.

The EIS should pay special attention to Mr. Schwartz's analysis of cloverleaf intersections. He shows how inappropriate they are for the central Jersey area. They use too much land, too much asphalt and their massiveness obliterates the town-to-town scale that Princeton and West Windsor and other communities along the Route 1 corridor would like to promote

We think the EIS should require analysis of ALL available engineering solutions with special emphasis on their impact on communities and the environment when it evaluates proposed roads and intersections. In short, context sensitive design should become the standard in the engineering department as well as the planning department.

The Schwartz report also notes that the modified cloverleaf intersection at Alexander and Route 1 is underutilized and could be used to move more traffic in an east/west direction. He suggests the NJDOT look at linking Alexander to the Highstown Road or Vaughn Drive. There are problems. The railroad tracks must be crossed and the parking lot must be redesigned, but there are engineering solutions to these problems that are not out of the ordinary. Mr. Schwartz' main point is that these connections make sense to move traffic from within West Windsor to Route 1 and would utilize the over designed Alexander Road/Route 1 intersection.

These are the highlights of the Schwartz report. We hope you will look at the details of the complete report when you have time.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. We look forward to working with you and the governments and citizens of central Jersey in the months ahead while we work to develop a comprehensive traffic and transportation plan for the Penns Neck/Princeton area.

Back to top

Residents

Comments Submitted by Charles Ascher, West Windsor Resident

I submit the following comments regarding the proposed bypass for inclusion in the record of recent hearings conducted at the Scooping Forum for regional input.

I do not have a specific solution to the problem, but recognize that the "bypass" is not the solution. The solution lies among the many thoughtful proposals and comments that have been made or combinations thereof. My wife and I have lived in the same house on Sherbrooke Drive since August of 1968. We came here when every commuter wanted to be the last resident to move to West Windsor and every farmer the last to sell to a developer. There is little left to sell and develop. We must preserve what we have left, but do so in a manner that permits us to coexist in a dynamic society.


Back to top

Remarks by Alan Goodheart, Princeton resident
for the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement

My name is Alan Goodheart. I am a member of the Harrison Street Neighborhood Association and the Sensible Transportation Options Partnership. I am speaking tonight for myself. My first home, when I was born, was on Harrison Street, a few blocks from my current home at 255, where I have lived for almost 30 years. 255 is a few minutes walk from Lake Carnegie, the Delaware and Raritan Canal, and the northern border of West Windsor Township. I am speaking here tonight because I am concerned about the impact of big road plans on my family, my neighborhood, my community (the normal extent of the places where I live, work, and play), my County (Mercer), and my State (New Jersey).

Before the former "Route US1 / Penns Neck Area Improvements" project, and before the 1991 NJDOT Plan and the Environment Assessment for the larger plan, issued by NJDOT in March 1991, and before NJDOT's Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study (Final Report, December 1986), the transportation issues we face today were brought to public attention in the local press. Little progress has been made since then; the situation is much worse and much more complicated. For the past five and a half years I have been working with a team of concerned citizens and professional colleagues to ensure that any plan for so-called traffic improvements will, in fact, make things better, better for everyone, better for the widest possible geographic area, and better for the longest time.

To ensure that all people affected by any plan were included in the planning, and to ensure that the context for solving any problems was large enough in geographic scope, and looked far enough forward in time, I did what I could to help:
1. stop the fast-track process for the inaptly named Millstone Bypass, a process that was short-cutting all responsible procedures that would have ensured a good solution
2. forward the educational efforts of the Sensible Transportation Options Partnership (STOP) by chairing the Good Options (GO) task force, whose charge it was to demonstrate the availability and viability of alternatives to NJDOT's plans
3. promote a much more extensive and inclusive effort by the State of New Jersey to use federal funds wisely in the development of real traffic improvements (e.g. an Environmental Impact Statement)
Now, finally, we are in the early stages of an Environmental Impact Statement process, and our immediate focus is on identifying issues and options.

First, I call attention to the list of "categories of potential actions and alternatives to address the general problem of mobility in the Penns Neck Area and environs" at the bottom of page 7 of the Penns Neck Area EIS environmental Review Scoping Process / Synopsis of Background Information, December 2001. These categories do not include a clear way to consider a broader range of construction and planning actions that could complement, reinforce, and provide a fuller cultural and economic rationale for the more narrowly defined purely transportation based actions and alternatives. As an example, I submit the attached sketch for a Penns Neck / West Windsor plaza over a "depressed" Route 1 at Washington Road. This idea combines separation of through and local traffic 3-dimensionally, with a vision of a potential new community asset, a neighborhood scale space that provides a new pedestrian front for the church, a location for a highly visible marker-of-place (such as a tall pylon or flag pole) above the centerline of Route 1, new commercial, and cultural/social service sites, and a local connector street between neighboring towns that could also improve emergency service response times. Ideas like this one could lead us to solutions that maintain and improve the character of our communities at the same time we are working to sort out the cars and trucks.

Second, regarding "Technical Studies", discussed in the middle of page 10 of the above-mentioned report, I think the Environmental Impact Statement should also consider complementary development proposals that can be envisioned for the affected areas, development proposals that could contribute to the quality of life as well as to long-term success of any transportation improvements. I have pointed out these two "omissions" because of my concern that we might lose sight of that fact that any transportation proposal is only as good as its service to all of our communities. Therefore, the context for evaluation of any proposal or alternative has to be inclusive enough to ensure this end.

Richard Barrett, who could not be here tonight, has asked me to include these few words. He will submit his extended comments in writing at a later time.

In James Kunstler's book, The Geography of Nowhere, he states that 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. When the book was published, the New Yorker Magazine called it "a serious attempt to point out way future builders can avoid the errors that have marred the American landscape". It is the responsibility of all of us in this process to come up with a responsible plan that will protect our important cultural and historic resources and help alleviate traffic problems along the Route 1 Corridor, as well as along our East/West roadway network.

In summary for myself:

The process in which we are engaged is complicated, complicated because of the structure of the governing laws and complicated because of the varied interests of the parties concerned and involved. My objectives are many (and interlocking), and so are the objectives of others. In the end, if we get the work set up right (which is what the scoping forum is all about), if everyone is trying to work in the largest possible geographic and environmental context, if all considerations take the longest possible view forward in time, and if everyone assumes that everyone else's point of view counts and should be included if all these things happen, then we have a chance, by working together, to make something good happen.

Back to top

Comments by Lincoln S. Hollister, Princeton resident

Presentation to Scoping Forum, Transportation Policy Institute
December 4, 2001

It is my hope that the solution to the EIS process will not put the environment in harms way, and that it will separate people from harm's way.

I think we must admit that an urban environment is being established in the area of the Penns Neck EIS. An habitable urban environment, for example Manhattan, has parks such as Central Park, and it has public transportation. The parks and the public transportation make the city work.

Assuming our goals are to make the Penns Neck area work for everyone, I
accordingly ask the following questions:

Will we destroy our "central park" in order to build a road? Our central park is Lake Carnegie, the D&R Canal park, the historic Washington Road Elm Allee, and the Millstone River. Can you find a solution to our mobility problems that preserves and enhances these environmental resources?

Will you measure noise levels in the quiet regions of this parkland? For example, will noise be measured on the Millstone River in the middle of what is now effectively a wildlife refuge? Will these noise levels be compared with what they will be if a new road encroaches onto this refuge? The refuge I speak of is the stretch of the Millstone River from Rte 1 to the Amtrak RR bridge, and it includes the woodlands along the river banks.

Will there be a study of the wildlife populations in this refuge to determine if any communities of birds and turtles and mammals will be put in danger by a new road solution?

Will you measure noise levels on the D&R Canal tow path between Harrison St and Washington Road and will you compare these with noise levels at the same distance from these roads that a new road might be built?

Will any solution destroy any part, or all, of the Washington Road historic Elm Allee?

Will you determine the effects of added impermeable surfaces in the headwaters of the Millstone River on the frequency and severity of flooding of communities downstream?

Now I have some questions regarding taking people away from harm's way:

You included a list of possible alternatives to our mobility problems in your mailing to us. Is this, to your knowledge, a complete and final list?

Will there be an engineering study on tunneling under Washington road for Rte 1? Think of the plaza and park possibilities if Route 1 were suppressed under Washington Road!

I know there is stakeholder pressure to close Washington Road. Will closing Washington Rd improve our ability to get to the Princeton Junction train station? If three roads are replaced by two roads, will this make traffic on the two remaining roads that much more congested? Will increased traffic on Harrison and Alexander further discourage WW and Plainsboro residents from going to restaurants, the theater, and basketball games in Princeton? By increasing traffic on Harrison St and Alexander Road, for how many hours of the day will it be almost impossible to get emergency vehicles to the Princeton hospital from communities east of Route 1?

I have worked at PU for over 30 years. Slowly but surely, it has become increasingly hazardous for me to cross Alexander Rd., Nassau St., Washington Road and Harrison Street. It is only a matter of time before there will be a tragic accident to a pedestrian attempting to cross these roads. How are you going to reduce this traffic load in order to make it less of a life and death adventure to cross these roads?

Can you demand that PU create parking incentives to alleviate the university's contribution to the traffic congestion? For example, can you ask PU to assign parking in a way that one doesn't have to drive around PU to get to one's assigned parking space and thereby contribute unnecessarily to the congestion?

Bicycle paths in our municipalities end abruptly in dangerous places. Can you demand that our towns be made more bike friendly?

Can't we have a bike lane along Washington Rd in order to be able to safely bike between Princeton Jct. and Princeton?

If you build decent bike paths, they will come.

I hope that in your EIS solutions you will seriously consider solutions that get pedestrians and bicycles out of harm's way.

And, returning to the subject of our central park. Please do not destroy it by segmentation and mitigation.

Back to top

Remarks by Sarah Hollister, Princeton resident

I'm worried because I think New Jersey is becoming increasingly urbanized, but is hobbled by antiquated institutions that came into existence when New Jersey was still the Garden State, decorated with truck farms and potato fields.

I'm going to talk about the big picture of transportation needs that have become so complex and terrible that no one agency, no one single perspective can solve them.

This picture became sharply clear at the last Round Table meeting when participants were repeatedly told that their ideas are outside the scope of the EIS.

What this implies is that the NJ Dept of Transportation, as it is currently organized, is powerless to deal creatively with the obvious need for decreasing reliance on motor vehicles and roads.

I question whether the structure of our governmental transportation agencies, set up with parallel but separate bureaucracies to serve the needs of the people trying to get from one place to another, actually
serves the people efficiently, effectively, and humanely.

How will the DOT coordinate with other transportation agencies to create a good network of alternative modes of transportation so that people aren't forced to use automobiles to get to work?

How will this network of alternative modes of transportation be in accord with the State Plan?

If the various governmental entities devoted to serving the people's transportation needs cannot coordinate with each other, then I worry about the environmental consequences. Our water supply is just one example. When New Jersey was a garden state, we had more water than we do now. The
serious drought we are now experiencing reminds us of the fragility of our water supply. How will NJDOT coordinate with other agencies to assure us, without using the word "mitigation," that any solutions to transportation problems will not further decrease the quantity and quality of our water
supply?

Can a multi-modal transportation system actually be devised in tandem with improvement of the quality of our drinking water? This will require sophisticated coordination with the EPA, county, and municipal government, as well as other agencies.

Can the DOT do this? The alternative is to push for re-organization of the way our government serves our transportation needs.

Back to top

Presentation by Peggy Killmer, Princeton resident

There are many important topics that need to be considered in the Penns Neck Area EIS.
These include:

Habitat loss and fragmentation
Wetlands
Nonpoint source pollution
Increased flooding from imperious ground cover
Increased VMT-and induced travel growth
Dependence on oil imports
Degradation of air quality with impacts on heath and global climate
Sense of place and cultural resources
Increased obesity among the population and hyperactivity among children
Need for a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment

I am concerned about considering the needs of the marketplace taking precedence over the well-being of families.

In particular, I want to address the issue of environmental justice.

As described by Federal Highway Administration-- and more recently by DVRPC, our MPO---it is important that minority and low-income populations not be denied benefits---in case, the spending of millions and millions of tax-payer money on transportation improvements.

We need to make certain that we are not providing transportation for only those people who can afford to own a vehicle while ignoring the needs of the working poor who need access to jobs on the US 1 corridor.

We are increasingly a society divided by race and class.
Unjust transportation policies keep poor people and minorities separate and apart.

We need to provide necessary transportation services to all Americans.
Thank you.

Back to top

Presentation by Nantanee Koppstein, West Windsor resident

Good Afternoon!

Thank you for the opportunity for voicing my concerns on the proposed Penns Neck Bypass at this forum. My name is Nantanee Koppstein. I have been a resident of West Windsor for the past 15 years. I live on Suffolk Lane in the Sherbrooke Development, which is the area opposite to the Acme Shopping Center on Rt. 571. This area is commonly known as downtown West Windsor. Sherbrooke itself was the first housing development to have been built on a farmland in West Windsor over 30 years ago.

A great deal has changed since then. The most noticeable change and one which has negatively impacted West Windsor residents the most is the increased volume of traffic. Especially during rush hours, it's common to see bumper to bumper traffic on Rt 571, all the way from the intersection of 571 and S. Mill Rd. to the intersection of 571 with Cranbury Rd., and over the bridge above the train tracks.

I realize that our neighbors on Washington Rd in Penns Neck have had to withstand crawling traffic right in front of their houses for decades before. We are badly in need of an alternative roadway to Washington Rd as one of the 3 major roadways into Princeton. But the current proposal of the Penns Neck Bypass calls for the starting point of the Bypass in West Windsor to be at the train track bridge at the intersection of 571 and Cranbury Road. This would mean that more cars and trucks would have greater incentives to come through major roads in West Windsor and right into downtown West Windsor, in order to get on the Bypass. For instance, drivers would play "connect the dots" game by coming west on Rt 571 from the end of the Hightstown Bypass at Old Trenton Rd and 571, in order to get onto the Penns Neck Bypass. More drivers would be attracted to use Clarksville Rd as an alternative Rt. 1, for instance, traveling northward on Clarksville during morning rush hours, and then either turn left onto 571 to get on the Bypass, or turn left onto N. Post Rd, and then through Berrien City to get on the Bypass.

So, we would be replacing the traffic backlogs in Penns Neck with more backlogs right in the downtown West Windsor area, where traffic to/from the Princeton Junction train station also converges. High school students from its neighborhoods walk to their school. While there are usually crossing guards at the corners of 571 and Clarksville Rd., and at Clarksville and Harris Streets, the guards are only present immediately after school dismissal time (and before school opening). Most high school students stay at school for sports and extra-curricular activities after school. They therefore are forced to risk their lives crossing 571 and Clarksville Rd., especially in the winter when it gets dark early. My high school son likes to be able to bike to the public library on North Post Rd., but I would not let him risk his life on his bike in inclement weather, or when it's not during broad daylight, or during rush hours. So I have to add more to the traffic problem by driving him to the public library! Thus a 10-minute bike trip is replaced by a 15-minute car trip. Similarly, Maurice Hawk Elementary School students and their parents would have to brave heavier traffic flows in crossing Clarksville to get to school from Hawk, Wallingford Dr, etc.

I believe we have a golden opportunity at this time for all community groups and governmental agencies to work together to find a creative solution to this very complex traffic problem. A creative solution is only possible when all stakeholders work together to achieve a common goal for all. A creative solution is possible when all parties look at the bigger traffic picture, not just from the points of view of residents of Penns Neck, Benford or Sherbrooke Development, or Berrien City in West Windsor; Plainsboro; or Princeton. We must look at the regional traffic pattern as a whole. A comprehensive regional traffic study should be undertaken. The decision in Trenton to raise tolls would also generate more truck and car traffic on our local roadways. We need more creative solutions to move traffic flows on Rt 1 more smoothly, from points as far south as Franklin Corner's Rd. in Lawrence Township, so that commuters have the incentive to stay on Rt 1, rather than using local roadways. Think of all lost time and wasted gasoline, not to mention air pollution generated, as thousands of cars and trucks sit idly in the traffic.

Thank you.

Back to top

Comments by Richard Lidz, West Windsor resident

As a resident of this area for over 40 years, I have a great deal of interest in changes to the transportation system because they will have a direct and significant effect on my neighborhood and my ability to get where I want to go. The scoping materials that I received asked me to comment on a number of points, which I have done as discussed below:

1.What are the transportation problems?
- From my perspective, the problem is to maintain local circulation and to be able to cross Route 1. The recent changes in signal timing have made this almost impossible because the lights are now set up to favor through-traffic on Route 1.
- Truck traffic on Route 1 has increased substantially over the last five years, or at least it seems so. I would be interested in knowing who that truck traffic is and where It is going. I suspect that quite a number of trucks are using Route 1 instead of the New Jersey Turnpike in order to avoid paying tolls. As long as Route 1 is set up to speed traffic along (by changing the signal timing), trucks will continue to be encouraged to use it as a cost-effective (for them) substitute for the Turnpike. Therefore I would suggest that one of the major transportation problems this area faces is "through" truck traffic using Route 1. This EIS should study the distribution of truck traffic as one of its major issues.

2. What kind of solutions should be considered?
Planners should consider alternatives that shift "through" truck traffic off of Route 1. Those alternatives should include disincentives to truckers for using Route 1, such as revising the signal timing so that Route 1 is slower, and therefore more expensive, for trucks. Think of this as Traffic Demand Management for trucks. Right now it seems to me that truckers are getting a "free ride" by using Route 1 to get where they want to go almost as fast as on the Turnpike, but without the tolls. We all know that trucks create more wear and tear on highways than any other vehicles, so this becomes a maintenance cost issue as well.

- There may be other ways to change the way trucks choose their routes. Trucks over a certain size could be prohibited from Route 1. There may be opportunities to create new truck routes, or truck lanes to divert trucks from this stretch of road. Those kinds of solutions should be investigated and addressed in these studies.

3. Is the proposed study area appropriate for analyzing the problems?
- It may be that some of the solutions to the truck, or other "through" traffic, may require developing a larger study area in order to evaluate them properly. If so, the study area should be revised accordingly.

4. What environmental, transportation, and community issues should be addressed?
- Clearly one of my major concerns is the connection of our neighborhood to the service areas of Princeton. Several of the proposed "solutions" cut us off from the rest of town by closing streets. Not only is this an inconvenience, it may be life-threatening if paramedic and police/fire services can't get to us. In addition, it separates us from a part of our greater community that is an important part of our social, economic and cultural lives. I worry about dividing an established community and in fact that is what several of these proposals do. Any solution that is proposed should be equitable, and should protect local communities.

5. What type of public involvement during development of the EIS?
- I think it is extremely important that you continue the outreach while the transportation problem is being defined and solutions are developed. We need to know what your data and analyses are showing. I strongly suspect that many of the "problems" of 10 or even 5 years ago are not necessarily the problems now. I would like to see your "purpose and need" statement long before the EIS is published. I would also like to have an opportunity to comment on the goals and objectives as well as the proposed solutions before it is too late to affect what goes into the EIS. I think many of the solutions that were recycled in the Scoping materials may not be the most cost-effective or neighborhood-friendly solutions that could be developed now. Whether you send me newsletters or emails is a lot less important than that you give me and others who are interested an opportunity to comment on the development of your EIS and not just on the finished product.

Back to top


Comments by Sandra Shapiro, West Windsor Resident,
West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives

There is no question that there is plenty of traffic in the Penns Neck area, indeed, in all of Mercer and Middlesex Counties. Having lived in West Windsor for more than 20 years, I have watched the nearly unbridled development of residential and commercial properties, spawned by poor and uncoordinated planning. What has been written about the Southwest, can surely be said about New Jersey, "You have to understand developers run this state."

There is hope, however. The New Jersey Office of State Planning has laid out a vision for regional development, and localities are beginning to take notice. The circulation system in the state plan exhorts municipalities to consider all modes of transport: vehicular, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. "It is vital that a community's circulation system [disperse] traffic throughout the network, instead of concentrating it in a few key arterials or collectors.It allows streets to retain a pedestrian-oriented, human scale, as opposed to the over-engineered, auto-oriented collectors and arterials of the suburbs." How are you going to incorporate the NJ Office of State Planning guidelines in the Penns Neck EIS?

After years of seeing our farmland and open space dwindle and be replaced by housing tracts, office buildings and retail malls, West Windsor is now beginning to preserve what little open space is left. The planning board and committees are beginning to address the need for "smart growth." Some of the poor zoning choices of the past are being addressed by a new Master Plan.

Some of West Windsor's open space is on privately held land, much held now by the Sarnoff Corporation and Princeton University. It is upon this land that proposals have been made to construct a roadway. The area of this land which abuts or is within sight lines of the Millstone River or the Delaware and Raritan Canal is highly sensitive land. How will the Environmental Impact Statement measure the impact of this proposed roadway on these lands?

In addition to losing land now used for recreation and wildlife, building a road through this property will induce more traffic through West Windsor, by creating a de facto connector from the New Jersey Turnpike to Routes 1, 206, and 287. How will the EIS measure this impact, and how will this impact be made known to the public?

The only street in West Windsor which might benefit from a diverted Route 571 is Washington Road. However, even with such a new road, all traffic projections predict that the primary and secondary arterial roads (including such a bypass) in West Windsor will remain over capacity. Please respond to the logical conclusion that it is simply irrational and irresponsible to construct a road at taxpayers' expense, but mainly on private land, which will be overburdened immediately on opening. How can you justify this to New Jersey taxpayers?

Last week at a meeting of the Princeton Junction Task Force, a subcommittee looking at ways to zone the Princeton Junction area, a woman said that she cannot merge onto Route 1 North from the Alexander Road entry ramp. Instead she drives to Penns Neck and turns at the signaled Washington Road intersection. Removing traffic lights along Route 1, a stated goal of the Department of Transportation, will exacerbate the problem of access to Route 1, both from east/west roads as well as from businesses along Route 1. Is this stated goal really beneficial?

When planning road improvements, it is also critical that the DOT look at the distance between grade-separated interchanges-are they coming dangerously too close to one another? The length of merge lanes must not be compromised. Is the speed limit too high on Route 1 in West Windsor and Plainsboro?

In planning any solutions to the problem of mobility in the Penns Neck Area, it is essential to produce a coordinated effort on the part of the State Office of Planning, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, and New Jersey Transit. How are these groups working together to achieve this goal? This is the most densely populated state in the country; we have an excellent opportunity to put together a regional plan that takes advantage of the density, using mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, as well as cars and trucks. Promoting a system that encourages ride-sharing, the use of jitneys, controlled parking conditions, etc. will help decrease the numbers of vehicles on the road and, thus, congestion.

Moreover, the climate and terrain of central New Jersey is favorable to such an approach. We need to provide incentives for people to bike and walk more than they do today. Whatever solution is achieved must include bike paths and sidewalks which are user-friendly. Paths across overpasses are hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Can't the Washington Road/Route 1 intersection be improved in a way that does not need to be replaced by an overpass and new roadway that, upon completion, is already over capacity and will further impede bicycle use?

It is instructive to compare the cost of mass transit with automobiles. Seattle Weekly reports:

Even the barest of financial comparisons, [researchers] say, show that each dollar spent on public transit gives back much more than a dollar invested in highways and other car-conducive infrastructure. Think of it this way: Public transit may be the hard-luck brother who hits you up for the occasional loan and embarrasses you at polite gatherings, but driving a car is like having a drug habit. Addicts never count the costs of their habit because that would be far too depressing.

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that roadway-user fees and taxes (such as the gas tax and vehicle registration fees) pay for only about 60 percent of public expenditures for roadway construction and repairs.

How can any solution to the traffic and mobility problems in the Penns Neck area work unless mass transit is included as a primary component? Once built, a road can last forever. It is important to take the time to analyze the issues and come to the best solutions. There should be no haste during this process.

Back to top

Comments by Marsha Smith, West Windsor Resident

I have owned a home in the Penns Neck area of West Windsor Township for 25 years on "upper" Fisher Place, a one block residential neighborhood intersecting U.S. Route l. Upper Fisher Place is presently the unofficial "bypass" for Washington Road and its intersection with Route l at the Princeton "Circle".

The Millstone/Penns Neck Bypass is proposed to preserve a nonexistent town center, reduce traffic through neighborhoods, improve emergency vehicle access to the Medical Center at Princeton and, by removal of three traffic signals at Fisher Place and Washington Road, make Route l a limited access high speed traffic artery.

There is an undeniable traffic problem, especially during the morning and evening rush hours, through West Windsor. In my opinion, the problem has been exacerbated by deferred maintenance and improvements to the existent road system during the protracted discussion of the bypass. On upper Fisher Place the only traffic problems I encounter are due to failed observance and enforcement of existing speed limits.

The costly construction of a 2 lane, 2 mile, traffic-signal controlled bypass addresses the traffic concerns of only one neighborhood segment of a larger regional problem. The bypass will be inadequate at the time of its completion with no evidence it will allay any of the afore-mentioned problems. At the present time, there are 31 southbound and 25 northbound sites of entrance and exit from Route 1 between Harrison St. and Quaker Bridge Rd. which preclude its being a limited access high speed artery.

I do not support the construction of the proposed primary or alternate alignments of the Penns Neck Bypass and urge thorough consideration of the "no build" option. While review continues I hope there will be enforcement of speed limits and pedestrian rights of way, use of speed bumps in residential areas, lane markings at intersections, redesign of the Princeton circle, sidewalks to permit pedestrian traffic, and improved public transit.

Back to top


Millstone Bypass Hearing - a Perspective
Comments by Pete Weale, West Windsor Resident

My name is Pete Weale. My residence is #144 (Lower) Fisher Place, West Windsor Township, with an invaluable Princeton mailing address: 08540.

I have been blessed with 17 years of DAILY enjoyment of the oasis called the Sarnoff property and have always been aware of the proposed routing of the Millstone Bypass. I do not suffer from a NIMBY mentality. Originally from Upstate NY, the attractiveness of the open farming lands in the Princeton area, proximity to Princeton University's stimulating educational environment and access to the Metropolitan New York were primary factors in relocating to a house that was constructed over 40 years ago. As a former resident of California, I am equally cognizant of how uncontrolled growth is no panacea.

Permit me to offer the following for your consideration:

(1). I speak as an unofficial proxy on behalf of the following groups:

A.) The children and adults who play and have played recreational and tournament soccer at Sarnoff as part of the WWP Soccer Association, (Pictures available),

B.) the West Windsor Little League which has benefited from generations of Tee-ballers chasing balls in the early Saturday morning light,

C.) Antique car clubs and fund-raising heart-walkers, joggers, and aerobic fitness walkers and

D.) Sarnoff employees who ponder and collect their innermost thoughts for the next great invention to benefit mankind while strolling in the Sarnoff Woods,
and

E.) Wildlife such as turtles, rabbits, waterfowl, beaver, woodchucks, and deer which couldn't be here today...

(2). Yes.... Sarnoff is truly magical. The Millstone River is the elixir and thread of life - the very lifeblood - feeding the shared ecosystem between man and nature. Critical aquifers will be affected by the proposed alignment. In this time of enlightenment, how can anyone dispel the importance of WATER? One cannot drink petroleum products - so tell me which sustains human life? I defy anyone in the last twenty years in the USA who could have forecast that WATER could be sold in bottles for money. (This excludes other parts of the world.)

As songwriter/singer Joni Mitchell said: "You don't know what you've got 'til its gone." Indeed, what is being proposed by a variety of interests (primarily a transportation bureaucracy charged with traffic improvements and insatiable developers who obsess that 'more' is 'better') is a menu of destruction whose costs far outweigh the benefits.

(3). I was moved by the December 3rd NY Times article headline referencing New York City's fabled Central Park. It was entitled: "A Backyard that Belongs to No One and Everyone." This succinctly defines the Sarnoff Woods, Sarnoff & Princeton University-owned Open Space, and the Millstone River.

Construction of the Millstone Bypass will NOT make this greater Princeton area "more civilized, " as does Central Park. But the Millstone River is, indeed, "a magical place", just like Central Park and other wonders of Mother Nature.

The areas of the Millstone River surrounded by Princeton University and the SRI/Sarnoff properties are simply in the short-term custody of those real property "owners;" certainly they "own" the deeded real property but the extraordinary space itself belongs to everyone! We should protect our treasures - don't destroy them! Provide alternatives and see what others cannot see; this is our charge.

(4). Signs advocating telephone calls to the Governor in support of the Bypass now line Washington Road and offer no alternatives or creative solutions which this forum seeks. For this opportunity to provide my arguments, I thank you on behalf of future generations.

Construction of the Bypass will NOT alleviate the "sitting in traffic" as advertised when viewed in aggregate of Sarnoff's proposed development and Princeton University's voracious obsession with developing every square foot of its inner and outer campus areas. Development in the eastern areas of Mercer County toward East Windsor and points northeast and south east of West Windsor will continue to draw more and more vehicular traffic to and through our community: this is where the jobs are! Today. What about tomorrow?

But stop! Evaluate objectively. That is the panel's charge. How is "work" changing? With the advent of computers and untold technologies, workers no longer must be at work at 6 or 7 a.m. for a traditional factory applications. Are we supposed to be working harder AND smarter? 'More highways' is NOT the answer.

(5). The premise of "more is better" is a failed concept. "More" highways don't reduce traffic. I have lived in Los Angeles and can show you 14 plus lanes of traffic near the LA Airport. There are still traffic jams! To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to triple the size of the Garden State Parkway or quintuple the # of tunnels into Manhattan! Whatever happened to common sense? Build or redevelop a new Garden State Parkway and demonstrate the offered remedies THERE and then let us talk. The Sarnoff/University properties should still be preserved, not become an impervious jungle fed by highways funded by NJ taxpayers for the benefit of these owners/developers.

Now for the PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES:

(1). We advocate tunneling US Route 1 beneath Washington Road to the low point of the Dinky Railroad bridge. This cut-and-cover concept would create a "piazza" or "plaza" at the Penns Neck Circle. It preserves the circle's universal function and history. "Rotaries" are embraced in the great cities of the world.

(2). Through Route 1 traffic at this lowered level will address the criteria for traffic signal elimination for through traffic. Too, it addresses noise abatement, for which I have seen no proposals from DOT. How has DOT addressed noise abatement?

(3). Use the excavated soil to provide a further landscaped natural 'berms' since through traffic is focused on getting through the area, not site-seeing. Easy on-off ramps for north and south-bound traffic are easily crafted without the obscene footprint of the Alexander Road and Meadow Road overpasses.

(4). Permit local vehicular and pedestrian traffic access Washington Road directly to Princeton, as it has been for centuries. Permit each of us and the public to enjoy the Elm Allee as a canvas, not solely to benefit Princeton University staff. Permit roadway flyovers on Route 1 at Harrison Street that are single-lane entrances and exits. Use portions of the existing Princeton University "overpass pile" at Harrison street to complete a flyover.

The University was sufficiently confident of the Bypass' passage, it began construction of a bridge base several years ago by acquiring properties along Logan drive and anyone or anyplace else that might oppose the University's vision, such as the residences and buildings at the Penns Neck Circle.

(5). Route traffic from Princeton Junction and the East over the 'Ellsworth Bridge' and have it "hug" a trail southwest along Vaughn Drive to Alexander Road. This preserves Berrien City. After all, Alexander Road is already a monument to commuters with its four-lanes of traffic (double the capacity of the proposed Millstone Bypass). This solution has been repeated in COUNTLESS proposes as seems to strike significant consensus.

(6). Live with rush-hour traffic! Commuter rush-hours are NORMAL throughout the world. These are normal operations research phenomena when demand for the roadway capacity is exceeded by demand by its users/commuters. The over-all demand will be smoothed when people decide they can leave earlier or later for work or tasks; reside closer to their places of employment, and capitalize on mass transit (an agency which "competes" to get commuters out of their individual automobiles. We alleviate and ameliorate (not eliminate) congestion along existing arteries. This is called MANAGEMENT. If DOT and decades-old study councils and transportation management committees cannot do the job, eliminate them and craft workable models.

The organization holding many of the cards in this power play is Princeton University. It has already expressed an interest in establishing a beachhead by conditionally acquiring 90 acres of Sarnoff property frontage (which of course could also be used for its highway visions). At some point in the near future, I forecast Princeton University will or should recover the remainder of the parcel for its long-term (100-year Plan and beyond) use.

What the taxpayers of the State, community members, and future generations of New Jersey residents cannot afford is to be railroaded into having the State of NJ pay for a private highway for Sarnoff/SRI and its private developers and Princeton University. When retained traffic professionals on behalf of Sarnoff pronounce that "10,000 cars per day added to Route 1 as a result of a 5 to 6-fold increase in the square-footage of Sarnoff (in excess of 3,500,000 sq feet from current 650,000 sq. feet, one has to be suspect of the term professional.

The Millstone Bypass as proposed by the University and DOT suggests a singular pursuit of its vision while ignoring constructive options and creative input.

I look forward to continued participation in reaching a win-win agreement to balance the needs of all parties. I thank those who have selflessly engaged in the dialogue to craft viable solutions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Pete Weale

Back to top

Response Document
(March 22, 2002)

Prepared by: Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

1. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives (WWCTA)

Question: "How are you going to incorporate the New Jersey Office of State Planning guidelines in the Penns Neck Area EIS?"

Response: The DEIS will present relevant components of various state, county and municipal plans and will qualitatively address the extent to which the action and no-action alternatives are consistent with these state and local plans. The NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan adopted March 1, 2001 (State Plan) will be among the plans considered in this section. In addition, the Office of State Planning or its successor will be consulted as part of the DEIS interagency coordination and consultation process.

2. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA

Question: "How will the EIS measure the impact of the proposed roadway on the highly sensitive lands which abut or are within sightlines of the Millstone River or the Delaware & Raritan Canal?"

Response: The DEIS will identify existing natural and man-made visual resources and viewsheds in the project area. Using FHWA guidance, each resource will be defined in terms of characteristics that make it a visual resource, who the viewers of the resource are, and what values the resource may have to viewers. The impact analysis will qualitatively assess the changes to the visual resource that could occur as a result of construction and operation of action and no-action alternatives. The impact analysis will identify whether or not an impact would occur, what impacts would be, and who the affected viewers would be. Relevant elements of the NJDOT's Context Sensitive Design program will be considered to protect the value of important visual resources. Where unavoidable adverse impacts might occur, potentially feasible means to minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts will be discussed in the DEIS.

3. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA

Question: "How will the EIS measure the impact of induced increase in traffic through West Windsor Township resulting from construction of the proposed roadway, which will act as a de facto connector from the NJ Turnpike to Routes 1, 206 and 287, and how will this impact be made known to the public?"

Response: Extensive transportation system modeling will be performed as part of the DEIS analyses. The analyses will include an assessment of roadway volumes, level of service and available capacity on various roadway segments, intersections and interchanges throughout the primary study area. The analysis will compare the transportation benefits to be derived from the action and no-action alternatives considered in the DEIS. This information will be communicated in the appropriate section(s) of the DEIS.

4. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA

Question: "Please respond to the logical conclusion that it is simply irrational and irresponsible to construct a road at taxpayers' expense, but mostly on private land, which will be overburdened immediately upon opening. How can you justify this to New Jersey taxpayers?"

Response: At this time, the alternatives screening and analysis process has not begun. It is anticipated that the action and no-action alternatives selected for detailed consideration in the DEIS will be evaluated based on a variety of goals and objectives, including goals and objectives specifically related to mobility improvement. The results of the alternatives analysis will be communicated in the DEIS and will be used to select a locally preferred alternative as part of the Final EIS process.

5. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA

Question: "How are NJDOT, NJ Transit and the State Office of Planning working together to achieve a coordinated effort to plan solutions to the problem of mobility in the Penns Neck Area?"

Response: NJDOT and NJ Transit are working in close consultation on various mobility-related EIS issues, including data and information sharing, consideration of complementary transit and travel demand management strategies, and transportation modeling. In addition, NJ Transit has a seat on the Penns Neck Area EIS Partners' Roundtable. The NJ Office of State Planning or its successor will be engaged at appropriate times throughout the EIS process to assess consistency with the NJ State Development and Redevelopment plan and on-going state planning activities.

6. Asked by: Miriam Yevick, Harrison St. neighborhood resident

Question: "Why was the name of this project changed from 'Millstone Bypass" to Penns Neck whatever-it-is"'?

Response: The Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement was so named in order to reflect the purpose and intent of the EIS, which is to consider and evaluate a range of actions to address mobility constraints in the Penns Neck area of Route I and environs.

7. Asked by: Lincoln Hollister, Princeton Twp. resident

Question: "Will you measure noise levels in the quiet regions of parkland - e.g., in the middle of the Millstone River and adjoining woodlands, from Route 1 to NEC bridge - and compare with projected levels of noise from proposed roads? Also, measure noise levels on Tow Path and compare?"

Response: Noise measurement and quantitative analysis will be undertaken using FHWA-approved procedures. The noise measurement study will be undertaken to describe the existing noise environment. Measurement data, roadway design information, and traffic data will be used to establish computer model inputs for the FHWA-approved Traffic Noise Model (TNM). Modeling analysis will determine traffic noise impacts for the action and no-action alternatives considered in the DEIS. A feasibility analysis of traffic noise mitigation will be undertaken, if warranted. A qualitative analysis of potential construction noise will be prepared with a discussion of potential mitigation measures. Appropriate noise monitoring locations will be selected based on the location of sensitive noise receptors in relation to the alternatives under consideration.

8. Asked by: Lincoln Hollister, Princeton Twp. resident

Question: "Will there be study of wildlife populations in this same area [see Question 7] to determine if any communities of birds, turtles or mammals will be put in danger by a new road solution?"

Response: The DEIS will include an analysis of impacts on aquatic ecology, vegetation and wildlife. The analysis will present and interpret available information on aquatic ecology, vegetation and wildlife and qualitatively identify potential construction and operational impacts of the action and no-action alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. Where unavoidable adverse impacts might occur, potentially feasible means to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts will be discussed as prescribed in FHWA guidelines.

9. Asked by: Lincoln Hollister, Princeton Twp. resident

Question: "Will any solution destroy any part, or all, of the Washington Road Elm Allee?"

Response: At this time, the precise nature of the alternatives to be considered in the DEIS is not known. The DEIS will include an analysis of potential impact on cultural resources located in the project area. This analysis will present and interpret available information on known historic and archeological resources. The analysis will identify and assess the potential construction and operational impacts of the action and no-action alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. Any potential impact on the Washington Road Elm Allee will be determined as part of this analysis. In addition, the EIS process will include a Section 4(f) evaluation and analysis conducted in accordance with FHWA and other federal guidance. Where unavoidable adverse impacts might occur, potentially feasible means to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts will be discussed.

10. Asked by: Lincoln Hollister, Princeton Twp. resident

Question: "Will you determine the effects of added impermeable surfaces in the headwaters of the Millstone River on the frequency and severity of flooding of communities downstream?"

Response: The DEIS will include an analysis of potential impact on wetlands, floodplains and water quality in the project area. The analysis will present and interpret available floodplain information in the project area and identify the extent to which each action and no action alternative would impact floodplains and any land uses contained in the affected ,floodplains. Areas of unavoidable impact will be quantified and consistency with federal regulations regarding floodplain impacts will be documented.

The analysis will also present and interpret available data and information on water quality and describe conceptually feasible stormwater management techniques for action and no-action alternatives. The analysis will quantify the potential effect of action and no-action alternatives on the recharge capability of the project area utilizing FHWA-approved techniques. The potential impact of action and no action alternatives on surface water quality in the Millstone River sub-watershed, including chloride levels from winter road salt application, will be assessed; and potential strategies to minimize or mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts will be described.

11. Asked by: Lincoln Hollister, Princeton Twp. resident

Question: "Is the list of possible alternative solutions to mobility problems included in the Scoping Forum handout a complete and final list?"

Response: No. The purpose of the Public Scoping Forum and on-going Penns Neck Area EIS public involvement activities is to elicit public input on the development of a full range of mobility actions to be considered in the EIS. The list presented in the Scoping Forum handout represents actions suggested as part of early outreach efforts.

12. Asked by: Lincoln Hollister, Princeton Twp. resident

Question: "Will there be an engineering study on the possibility of tunneling Route 1 under Washington Road?"

Response: The engineering feasibility and reasonableness of constructing Route 1 "in a cut " under existing Washington Road will be fully evaluated in relation to a full range of road-based actions to address mobility constraints in the Penns Neck area of Route 1.

13. Asked by: John Mulcahy, Wellington Estates resident

Question: "Why are three of the four primary stakeholders identified in the Scoping Forum presentation entities from outside West Windsor, when the project is to be built entirely on West Windsor land? Why shouldn't they be, at most, secondary stakeholders? What is the rationale?"

Response: The study area for the EIS has been structured into overlapping regions. The primary study area is composed of the municipalities of Plainsboro Township, Princeton Borough, Princeton Township, and West Windsor Township. This area approximates a five mile radius around the Route 1- Washington Road intersection in West Windsor Township and will be used as the basis for detailed local area transportation modeling The secondary study area is composed of twenty municipalities in Mercer, Middlesex, and Somerset counties. This area provides a regional context regarding demographics and travel patterns.

The primary study area boundary was selected to incorporate full consideration of local travel patterns and to ensure that local area transportation impacts are fully assessed. These four municipalities are among a much larger number of "stakeholders " that will be engaged and consulted throughout the EIS process.

Back to top

News Reports

Penns Neck Escalates Millstone Bypass Battle

West Windsor-Plainsboro News
December 14, 2001

by Bill Sanservino

Tired of having the message of Millstone Bypass opponents crammed down their throats, residents of Penns Neck have formed an advocacy group of their own to campaign for construction of the road.

The group-Save Penns Neck-fired its opening salvo in late November when it placed signs along Alexander, Washington, and North Post Roads. The signs told motorists "tired of waiting in traffic" to call Acting Governor Donald-DiFrancesco and urge construction of the bypass. The sign also lists the phone number for the governor's office.

Councilwoman-Rae Roeder, a lifelong resident of Penns Neck, organized the group with her neighbors to make sure their message is heard. "We lost our school (the Penns Neck School when the Alexander Road Overpass was built), and we lost our neighborhood on Route 1. All we have left is our homes now. How much more do we have to give up. In a lot of ways this is Custer's last stand, but we have to win this time."

The bypass route advocated by Penns Neck would take traffic off of Washington Road and route it from the Route 571 railroad bridge to a new road to be built on property owned by the Sarnoff Corporation. Plans also call for the construction of an overpass over Route 1 near Harrison Street. The road would then proceed west and then south, paralleling the Delaware & Raritan Canal and ending at Washington Road.

"This is an effort to focus people on the issue at hand, and that is that the traffic is already here now." Says Roeder. "Saving Penns Neck is a promise that the state, county, and municipality made to us more than 20 years ago. The time for looking for a solution has come and gone."

"We have come together to make it clear to the state that we're running out of time. This process has been hijacked by a group of people in Princeton who don't have anything to do with it. Every rock, tree, and blade of grass in this bypass is located in West Windsor".

"We thought this issue was being handled but it wasn't, so we reactivated a group to focus on the saving of our community. We're going to push the state to continue the process, wrap it up, and get the bypass constructed.

"Then we're going to reclaim Washington Road from the county, put historic markers on the road and get Penns Neck declared a historic area. We're also going to work with other neighborhoods in West Windsor so they clearly understand that without the bypass their neighborhoods will be choked-up by traffic that is looking for alternate routes. We're also going to assist other neighborhoods to help them protect themselves against traffic as well."

Penns Neck native Susan Parris, a member of the group, has also been very vocal in her support of the bypass. "In case nobody heard us before, we need to say it a little louder. We need the bypass. We are advocating something that will not only benefit our neighborhood, it will also benefit the entire region."

Parris says the mission of the group is to remain vigilant. "We're going to keep our ear to the ground and let people know how we feel. We've been a little too quiet. Although we've always maintained we don't want this to be a political process, Princeton screwed up by politicizing it. So now, we're going to let our elected officials know how we feel. Whenever we get a chance to advocate the bypass we will."

Members of Save Penns Neck appeared at the day-long forum on Tuesday; December 4, held to solicit comments from the public on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being undertaken by the state on the project. The "scoping" forum was sponsored by the Transportation Policy Institute of Rutgers, which was hired by the Department of Transportation to conduct the EIS.

As the scoping forum started, a group of about 20 Penns Neck residents sat together in the main meeting room of the West Windsor municipal building talking about their new group and how they needed to combat the people from Princeton opposed to the bypass they have fought for almost two decades to get constructed. "Penns Neck is always getting dumped on," said one of the residents.

Roeder was clearly the leader of the group. A devoted advocate of the Penns Neck community, she has been at the forefront of the fight to build the bypass and get traffic off Washington Road for decades. She talked about the need for action and claimed responsibility for the "tired of waiting in traffic" signs. "You ain't seen nothing yet," she added.

At 11 a.m. some 100 people were present in the audience as a panel assembled to give a presentation on the EIS process. The panel was comprised of Martin Robins, director of the Transportation Policy Institute; Chitra Radin, of Radin Consulting; Jon Carnegie, senior project manager at the Transportation Policy Institute; and Helen Neuhaus, of Helen Neuhaus Associates, the public relations firm coordinating comments. Robins spoke on the history of the project and gave an overview of the EIS. Radin talked about the EIS process, followed by Carnegie on the study approach process.

Following the presentation, the four left the room and made themselves available to anyone who wanted to speak with them. Lonnie Weiss, a professional meeting facilitator, began the public forum, acting as moderator.

The scoping forum, held from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m., featured a presentation by the Transportation Policy Institute on the history of he project and the EIS process, followed by comments from the public. Each speaker was given five minutes to speak. Most had prescheduled appointments for a speaking time, but people who signed up to talk at the door were allowed to present their views throughout the day.

Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed and Princeton Township Mayor Phyllis Marchand kicked-off the public comment session, combining their time in a joint statement. They urged that the EIS process include alternatives to the Millstone Bypass.

''What's the point of rebuilding highways to remove one bottleneck, only to make other areas even more congested," said Marchand. "We cannot tolerate less than adequate proposals that do not balance traffic on our three entry roadways and result in much greater congestion in one segment of town at the expense of the other."

Reed said the EIS should consider. areas such as Routes 27 and 206 in Princeton and: Route 571 and the Alexander Road bridge in Princeton Junction, all of which could be impacted by the project.

West Windsor Councilwoman Jackie Alberts took an opposing view, urging the scope of the EIS be reduced to only include West Windsor. "Physically, the entire project is located within West Windsor. A no-build option is not viable for West Windsor. Current traffic movement on Washington Road is rated at an F level of service (the worst rating)."

A1berts also pointed out that when Sarnoff develops its proposed 3 million square-foot office complex in Penns Neck, the portion of the bypass proposed to run through the Sarnoff property will be constructed. "A piece of what we ate all debating will be built no matter what we do."

West Windsor resident Lynn Ruff said that all township citizens do not support the Millstone Bypass. "There are many that oppose it. The bypass would attract more traffic and development. It would be deleterious to the township as a whole (Ruff urged consideration of a depressed Route 1, and a connector from Washington Road to Vaughn Drive as alternatives to the bypass.

Richard Lidz, a 40-year West Windsor resident, said the bypass, combined with improvements on Princeton-Hightstown Road and the Hightstown Bypass will make Route 571 a thoroughfare for truck traffic.

Arch Davis, a Princeton resident, was also an advocate of alternate plans, such as a depressed Route 1. "It's a better design (than the Millstone Bypass, and provides for better noise mitigation."

Ralph Osborne, said he has spent most of his life living in the Penns Neck area. ":1 can't wait to get this thing straightened away, and over with. I'II be 99 in May. I'd hate to see things get any worse."

Residents of Harrison Street in Princeton, who believe the bypass would force a large amount of additional traffic down their road, were also represented. One was Thomas Holman, who believes that an equitable solution must be reached. "Shifting the problem from one neighborhood to another will not solve the problem. Harrison Street is as much a neighborhood as Washington Road in Penns Neck. As long as we fight one community against each other, we will not solve our problems."

A Princeton resident who resides on Prospect Avenue off of Harrison Street, said the bypass will "further congest an already congested road. Harrison Street already backs up in the morning with bumper-to-bumper cars from the corner of Prospect all the way to Nassau Street. The side streets to and from Harrison, also experience a fair amount of traffic."

Princeton resident Norman Sissman, a member of the Princeton Regional Health Commission, said the bypass, as originally proposed, comes within 340 feet of the Delaware ~ Raritan Canal. Development within 1,000 feet of the canal is discouraged. He added that pollution from cars and trucks using the highway could contaminate the canal, which he said was a component of the Princetons' water supply system: "It could seriously degrade our drinking water quality."

West Windsor resident Nantanee Koppstein, a 15-year West Windsor resident, urged cooperation. "My neighbors in Penns Neck have had to withstand crawling traffic in front of their homes for decades. If the bypass is built, it will bring more cars and more traffic down Route 571 and into West Windsor. Community groups and government agencies have to work together to find a creative solution."

"Improvements to Route 1 should not countermine 20 years worth of planning in Princeton," said Lee Solow, planning director for the Princeton Regional Planning Board. He said that the EIS scope must give " substantial treatment to all alternatives" to the Millstone Bypass and all environmental impacts.

Parris made a plea for the construction of the bypass. "Our village is being strangled by traffic. The solution is to build the Penns Neck Bypass... Unfortunately, some people in Princeton have unfairly used their superior resources to politicize the issue and to bully authorities. The selfish, parochial agendas of one community must not be allowed to prevail."

The latest chapter in the Millstone Bypass saga began last October when then-Governor Christie Whitman threw out an environmental study by DOT recommending construction of the bypass and settling on a route for the road. Whitman mandated a lengthy environmental impact statement (EIS).to be conducted to determine the necessity of the project, its environmental effects, and possible alternatives.

The state then retained the Transportation Policy Institute of Rutgers University to conduct the EIS and help mediate a solution between supporters and foes of the bypass. The project was renamed the Penns Neck Area EIS to indicate that alternatives to the bypass would be considered as part of the study.

The Partners' Roundtable was then set up by Rutgers several months into the process. According to the EIS website (policy.rutgers.edu/tpi/pennsneckareaeis), the roundtable is charged with considering the mobility issues facing The Penns Neck area; addressing differences of opinion and approach; and striving for consensus on workable solutions for mobility issues.

Copyright 2001 West Windsor-Plainsboro News

Back to top

Forum reheats bypass debate

12/05/01

By ROBERT STERN
Staff Writer

WEST WINDSOR -- Ralph E. Osborne is tired of the talk, sick of the seemingly endless debate.

For him and many of his neighbors in the Penns Neck section of West Windsor, it is past time that the Millstone Bypass be built to ease east-west traffic flow along arteries crossing Route 1.

But some residents and top officials in the Princetons, on the other side of Route 1, say that now is the perfect time to discuss a wide range of solutions to traffic woes in the region.

Princeton Township Mayor Phyllis Marchand and Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed say their communities remain opposed to building the Millstone Bypass.

In part, they fear that it will add to road congestion in their towns while harming the environment near the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park between Harrison Street and Washington Road.

The issue has been a source of intense regional debate for about two decades.

It drew renewed interest from dozens of area residents and officials yesterday during a daylong forum seeking public comment designed to help create a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on solutions to Penns Neck-area traffic woes.

The state Department of Transportation hired the Rutgers Transportation Policy Institute to facilitate the EIS process after former Gov. Christie Whitman rejected a less stringent environmental study over the controversial Millstone Bypass alignment about a year ago.

"I can't wait to get this thing straightened away and get it over with," said Osborne, whose Varsity Avenue house is one block south of Washington Road near Route 1.

"I'll be 99 in May, so I'd hate to see things get any worse," Osborne said. "When I first came up in this area, Route 1 was a nice two-lane road. We had no problem, everything worked."

"We can swallow hard as we anticipate more congestion," Marchand said.

"What we cannot tolerate are less-than-adequate proposals that do not balance traffic on our three entry roadways (Harrison Street and Alexander and Washington roads) and result in much greater congestion in one segment of town at the expense of the other," she said.

West Windsor Councilwoman Jackie Alberts suggested that the primary area being studied by the Rutgers group should be narrowed solely to West Windsor because the proposed Millstone Bypass would be entirely within West Windsor and should be designed to ease congestion in her community.

Currently, the primary study area encompasses a 5-mile radius centered on the Route 1 intersection with Washington Road and stretches from Plainsboro to the Princetons.

Despite yesterday's comments, neither the Millstone Bypass nor any other option holds a preferred status in the analysis of possible solutions, said Martin Robins, a Rutgers official directing the environmental study.

Other possibilities include creating a new light-rail or bus rapid-transit system that might serve the corporate campuses that line Route 1 in the area, depressing Route 1 beneath Washington Road and developing a frontage local-access road west of Route 1.

Whatever solutions, if any, are chosen in the long run are not likely to please everyone, several area residents said.

In the end, there will be a need for compromise, said West Windsor resident Nantanee Koppstein.

"We have a golden opportunity . . . to work together to find a creative solution to this very complex traffic problem," she said. But that will involve looking at the traffic situation from a regional, not a parochial, perspective.

Thomas Hollmann of Princeton Borough agreed, saying that pitting community against community and neighborhood against neighborhood will lead nowhere.

"A lot of people have got to change their views, have got to participate in the solution," he said, giving as an example more widespread use of carpooling.

© 2001 The Times

Back to top

Bypass forum reconfirms Princeton-West Windsor split

By: David Campbell, Staff Writer    December 07, 2001

West Windsor, which supports a bypass that would minimize traffic impacts on the Penns Neck and Berrien City neighborhoods and speed emergency vehicles across Route 1, again called for an end to talk and urged that a roadway finally be built.

WEST WINDSOR - Old battle lines were visible Tuesday as mediators for the state Department of Transportation heard public testimony on traffic woes in the Penns Neck area.

West Windsor Township, which historically has supported a bypass that would minimize traffic impacts on the Penns Neck and Berrien City neighborhoods and speed emergency vehicles across Route 1, again called for an end to talk and urged that a roadway finally be built.

Princeton Township Mayor Phyllis Marchand and Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed, alluding to their past opposition to building a bypass, warned against "limited solutions" to certain future gridlock.

The mayors said the geographic scope of the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement should encompass the 20 surrounding municipalities in Middlesex, Mercer and Somerset counties, and that mass transit and alternatives that reduce car dependency should be considered.

The mediated EIS is the most recent attempt by the DOT to resolve several controversial issues surrounding the Millstone Bypass proposal, first submitted by the DOT in 1986.

The DOT hired Rutgers University's Transportation Policy Institute to mediate a solution after former Gov. Christie Whitman rejected the DOT's environmental assessment of the bypass. An advisory committee of area stakeholders, called the Penns Neck EIS Partners Roundtable, began meeting in June.

The Rutgers team will use roundtable input and testimony gathered at the well-attended all-day forum Tuesday to complete the EIS, expected to be issued in draft form by November 2002 and final form by April 2003.

West Windsor Councilwoman Jacqueline Alberts said that no-build is "not a viable alternative for West Windsor," and urged the Rutgers staff to make the township the primary study area.

"We are the ones directly affected if the project is built, the ones directly affected if the project is not built," Ms. Alberts said.

She said the Millstone Bypass is an "essential" route for emergency vehicles headed to The Medical Center at Princeton.

"A few extra minutes of transit time to a heart-attack victim makes a whole lot of difference," Ms. Alberts said.

Penns Neck resident Susan Connolly Parris said that "our village is being strangled by traffic," and the bypass is the solution.

"The problem is obvious and the solution is clear," Ms. Connolly Parris said.

Members of Save Penns Neck, a community action group of around 45 West Windsor residents, gave supporting testimony favoring the roadway.

"We're all trying to come together. It's time for us to stand up," West Windsor Councilwoman Rae Roeder said.

Mayor Marchand of Princeton Township said previous studies have ignored mounting congestion on the three major arteries into Princeton - Alexander Road, Washington Road and Harrison Street - and she cited recent traffic projections showing that area roadways will exceed capacity no matter what is built.

"Our complaints about past efforts are well known," Mayor Marchand said. "What's the point of rebuilding highways to relieve one bottleneck only to make congestion worse elsewhere?"

Representatives of Sarnoff Corp. and Eden Institute, as they have often in the past, supported the bypass.

Patrick Murphy of Sarnoff said a resolution to the Route 1 bottleneck is "long overdue," and that "it is time to act on an environmentally sensitive, neighborhood-friendly, regionally needed road."

Dr. David Holmes, president and chief executive officer of Eden, said Eden and the autistic people it serves are "literally held hostage" by delay.

"We're very concerned about the lack of forward momentum on this process," Dr. Holmes said.

Robert Durkee, Princeton University's vice president for community affairs, again staked out the university's long-held position.

Mr. Durkee said the university will support a solution that improves traffic flow along Route 1 while fairly distributing traffic among the three primary roads into Princeton; that respects environmental resources such as the Millstone River and the Delaware & Raritan Canal; and that respects Princeton's education and future land-use goals.

"We look forward to continuing engagement in these discussions in the future," Mr. Durkee said.

©Packet Online 2001

Back to top

 

Return to
Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition Home Page