Meeting Description Penns Neck Area EIS Roundtable Meeting

Date August 28, 2001 Time 5:00 P.M. Location West Windsor Senior Center

- This was the fourth meeting of the Roundtable.

- The attendance list is attached.

Sanford Jaffe, Director, Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Rutgers University, called the

meeting to order and announced the following meeting dates for September and October:

Tuesday, September 11^th, 5:00-8:00 P.M., West Windsor Senior Center

Candace Preston, Harrison Street Neighborhood Association, requested that the previously agreed-upon meeting time of 5:00 P.M. be reconsidered, noting that it is a difficult hour for persons with full-time jobs and for merchants who would need to close their stores early in order to attend. She emphasized her concern that 5:00 P.M. meetings would limit some individuals’ ability to participate in Roundtable proceedings. In the ensuing discussion on this issue, Roundtable members provided the following comments:

0. Dianne Brake, Regional Planning Partnership, recalled that part of the rationale for adopting the 5:00 P.M. time was to accommodate persons with later evening meeting commitments (municipal boards, etc.).
0. Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, West Windsor Township, supported this position, pointing out that he has a full-time day job, as well as responsibility to attend late evening meetings. Mayor Hsueh added that this topic was extensively discussed at a previous Roundtable meeting, at which there was consensus that 5:00 P.M. was the preferred starting time.
0. Lincoln Hollister, Sensible Transportation Options Partnership (STOP), responded that the Roundtable should accommodate the citizens, "the people who aren’t paid to be here." He emphasized his position that those who would be most affected by any proposed project are those hurt the most by a 5:00 P.M. meeting time. Both he and Ms. Preston urged that Roundtable meetings start at 5:30 P.M.
0. George Hawkins, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association (SBMWA), suggested variable meeting times.

Mr. Jaffe subsequently polled Roundtable members, with the following results:

0. 14 members expressed a clear preference for a 5:00 P.M. start time (with some indicating flexibility);
0. 6 members expressed a clear preference for either a later start time or variable meeting times;
0. 2 members expressed total flexibility;
0. 1 member supported either the 5:00 P.M. time or a "much later start - 6:00 or 6:30 P.M.," in order to avoid heavy traffic.

Based on these results, Mr. Jaffe concluded that the meeting time would remain 5:00 to 8:00 P.M. In response to a request from Alan Goodheart, S.T.O.P., Mr. Jaffe agreed that the scoping hearing and other forums at which broader public participation is being sought would begin at later times.

TRENTON TIMES ARTICLE AND CONTACT WITH PRESS

Jean Mahoney, Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition, reported that several members of the Coalition had asked the Roundtable to discuss the tone and content of a recent article by Trenton Times reporter Karen Ayres regarding the Roundtable and the EIS process, which included quotes from Martin Robins, Director, Transportation Policy Institute (TPI), Rutgers University. In a lengthy discussion of this issue, Roundtable members provided the following comments:

0. Patrick Lyons, Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust, referred to the article’s description of the "emotionally charged" atmosphere of the Roundtable and the split of viewpoints between West Windsor Township and the Princetons as being disheartening and contributing to a perpetuation of an atmosphere of conflict. Mr. Lyons also observed that the project team should have been more aware of the need to be circumspect in speaking to the media.
0. Paula McGuire, West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives (WWCTA), agreed with Mr. Lyons and added her perspective that Roundtable meetings to date were quite productive and not emotionally charged. She advised the project team to contact the Trenton Times to attempt to correct the mistaken impression conveyed by the article.
0. Janine Bauer, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, recommended that the Project Team adopt a policy of not giving interviews, thereby precluding the possibility of misquotes or mischaracterizations. Ms. Bauer also expressed her view that since the Roundtable was in charge of the process, Roundtable members, rather than the consultants, should be giving interviews.
0. Ms. Bauer’s recommendation that the consultants not give interviews was supported by Mr. Hawkins, who emphasized that, as facilitators of the Roundtable, the project team must maintain neutrality. He added that this neutrality is compromised when members of the project team characterize events, especially to the media.
0. Laura Lynch, Sierra Club, shared her view that the Trenton Times has a pro-development bias that encourages its editors to revise articles to accommodate inflammatory headlines. She concluded that, in this instance, the incendiary nature of the article might be attributable less to Mr. Robins’ actual quotes than to the way in which the Trenton Times’ editors used them.
0. Andras Fekete, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), pointed out that since the Roundtable decided that the press was welcome at its meetings, distortions were inevitable and Roundtable members should attempt to ignore them.
0. Mayor Phyllis Marchand, Princeton Township, agreed with Mr. Fekete by noting that her reaction to the article had been, "It must have been a slow news week."
0. Sandy Shapiro, WWCTA, summarized the discussion by pointing out that while those who attend meetings and are most involved in the process are aware of the truth and can toss aside distorted press accounts, these accounts are significant in influencing citizens who are less familiar with the project.

Before moving on to the next agenda item, Mr. Hollister asked Mr. Robins to comment on the quotes attributed to him in the article, to verify whether they were accurate, and to confirm whether an attempt would be made to ask the Trenton Times to correct the mistaken impression. In response to Mr. Jaffe’s reply that it would not be helpful to address these issues, Roundtable members provided the following additional comments:

1. Ms. Bauer asked the Roundtable to discuss her recommendation that project consultants be prohibited from speaking to the press and asked Mr. Jaffe to determine if there was consensus in favor of this idea.
1. In response to a question from Noelle McKay, SBMWA, concerning whether it is customary for project team members to speak to the press, Mr. Jaffe explained that facilitators ordinarily do speak to reporters, since it is unwise to "hang up on the press" when they call for comments or information.
1. Mr. Hawkins responded to Mr. Jaffe’s comment by reiterating his position that a facilitator must maintain neutrality and should be "the last person you would want to talk to the press."
1. David Parris, Penns Neck community, expressed his view that there should be no restrictions on the ability of any member of the project team to speak with reporters.
1. Ms. Lynch indicated that she found it acceptable for the facilitator to provide simple facts to the press.
1. Michael LaPlace, Plainsboro Township, agreed that the facilitator could give information about the process but should not characterize or color it.
1. After Ms. Bauer noted that she could live with a rule that permitted the discussion of process and procedure only, Mr. Jaffe concluded that there was consensus on this point.

 

 

INVITATION LETTER TO ROUNDTABLE MEMBERS

Jon Carnegie, TPI, Rutgers University, reported that contact information has been obtained for members added to the Roundtable at the August 2^nd meeting, upon the recommendation of the Membership Committee. In addition to the two groups whose representatives were seated at that meeting (Harrison Street Neighborhood Association and West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives), the new members are: 1) Greater Mercer County Chamber of Commerce (GMCCC); 2) West Windsor Division of GMCCC; 3) Princeton Borough Merchants Association; and 4) Princeton Shopping Center Merchants Association (PSCMA). Mr. Carnegie noted that the PSCMA was the only organization that approximated a "Princeton Township Merchants Association," as described in the Membership Committee’s report. He also reported that although there is no "Princeton Junction Merchants Association," it was determined that the West Windsor Division of GMCCC could adequately represent the interests of Princeton Junction merchants.

As recommended by the Membership Committee, a Letter of Invitation was drafted and transmitted to all Roundtable members (old and new). Mr. Carnegie emphasized the Letter’s intent to convey the uniqueness of the Penns Neck Area EIS process and underscore the importance of leaving behind "old baggage" in embarking on this new mission.

Ms. McKay, Chair of the Membership Committee, remarked that although she understood the project team’s time constraints in drafting and distributing the Letter of Invitation, she was disappointed that her Committee did not have an opportunity to review the letter prior to its distribution, as promised. She respectfully requested that the project team be more diligent in fulfilling its promises to the Roundtable in the future. Mr. Jaffe expressed his agreement with Ms. McKay’s comments and acknowledged the project team’s failure to meet its commitment on this promise.

WEBSITE

It was reported that the Project website is undergoing final content review, with a goal of having it up and running by September 4^th. The website address will be: www.pennsneckareaeis.org. Website content will incorporate all information pertinent to the project, including documents produced or under consideration by the Roundtable; a calendar of meetings and events; NEPA information; information about the project team and Roundtable members; and the project newsletter. Barring any objections, the site will also include links to the websites of Roundtable member organizations. In response to Mr. Lyons’ request that a PDF format be used, to enable Mac users to access all parts of the website, Mr. Carnegie indicated that this will be the case.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Mr. Jaffe initiated discussion of Version 3 of the Problem Statement, which was emailed to Roundtable members in advance of the meeting, by expressing his hope that the Roundtable could reach consensus on the document at this meeting "based on a comfort level" and with the understanding that the document will not be "cast in stone" and will require additional data based on later discoveries and conclusions. Mr. Carnegie echoed Mr. Jaffe’s sentiment, by specifically noting that the document is now described as a "Working" draft and that a "pre-paragraph" has been added to clearly indicate that the Working Problem Statement will be subject to updating as the EIS process continues. Mr. Carnegie also explained that Version 3 attempts to eliminate subjective language and incorporate all comments received on Version 2. Noting that some Roundtable members have already submitted comments on Version 3, he distributed copies of these written statements. In further remarks, Mr. Carnegie added that relevant project issues that did not belong in the Problem Statement have been placed on an Issues Docket for future reference.

In order to illustrate the regional context of the Problem Statement, Mr. Carnegie drew a large circle encompassing a smaller circle with a "bull’s-eye" within the small circle. He explained that the large circle represents the Central Jersey Transportation Forum (Forum) region: 20 municipalities in Middlesex, Somerset, and Mercer Counties. The smaller circle represents the West Windsor-Princeton-Plainsboro area, and the bull’s-eye is the Penns Neck area, focusing on the Harrison Street, Fisher Place, and Washington Road intersections with Route 1. In response to a question from Ms. Mahoney, Mr. Carnegie explained that the Forum grew out of the Congestion Management Study (CMS) for this area and has been meeting regularly for the past three years to discuss broader land use and transportation issues within the region. Ms. Mahoney recommended that the text of the Problem Statement be clarified to differentiate references to "four decades" of regional growth from references to the "three years" of the Forum’s existence. Other related comments included the following:

1. In response to Ms. McGuire’s observation that both 1975 and "the 1960’s" are used as reference points, Mr. Carnegie explained that the dates refer to specific data collection efforts. Ms. McGuire suggested that an asterisk and footnote be used in such situations.
1. Ms. Bauer remarked that references to the 1960’s did not seem particularly relevant and suggested that the Problem Statement only discuss the past decade and the decade to come. In response, Mr. Carnegie suggested using 1980 as a past reference point.
1. Ms. Bauer indicated that it was her recollection that the Roundtable had agreed to exclude context statements from the Problem Statement and put them in the Statement of Existing Conditions. She also noted her preference for Version 2 of the Problem Statement, which she described as a "cleaner document."
1. Ms. Bauer observed that she saw no reason to mention the Forum in the Problem Statement, since it is the Roundtable’s mission to accomplish something that the Forum had been unable to do. Mr. Carnegie replied that he recalled a previous Roundtable decision to broaden the Problem Statement.

 

A general discussion of Version 3 of the Problem Statement followed, during which the following comments were recorded:

1. Mr. Lyons observed that environmental, ecological, and open space issues were overlooked in the introductory paragraph. He emphasized that this paragraph should reference the need to preserve the natural environment of the area, including the pristine watershed. Pam Hersh, Princeton University, agreed with Mr. Lyons that "we have to hit every point in the first two paragraphs."
1. Mr. Fekete stated that although the Roundtable will ultimately consider issues of regional context and land use, the Problem Statement should focus on transportation. In response to a comment by Amy Fox, Federal Highway Administration, that her agency has no control over "urban sprawl," Mr. Jaffe suggested that land use references be moved from the first to a later paragraph. Other comments on this issue included Ms. Hersh’s opinion that the first paragraph should include "a short history" to put the problem in context and Ms. McGuire’s recollection that the Roundtable had previously suggested that the Problem Statement include reference to issues such as land use policy that this project cannot directly influence, in the hope that it might influence the decisions of others.
1. Mr. Goodheart voiced his opinion that it is critical to discuss land use in the Problem Statement, specifically how the policies of local planning entities interface or conflict with any contemplated roadway construction.
1. Ms. McKay suggested that it would be useful to define the geographic boundaries of the term "Penns Neck area" and questioned whether this was not, in fact, essential to developing the EIS. Mr. Carnegie replied that discussion of the EIS study area will begin in September, probably with a presentation by the Forum at a Roundtable meeting.
1. Richard Eland, Princeton Junction Communities, asked if the project team is referring to this EIS process as "groundbreaking" because it represents the first time that three or four mayors of neighboring communities, along with citizen groups, are sitting down to discuss issues affecting their region. Mr. Carnegie replied that the process is "groundbreaking" because it is setting new ground in the manner in which it is including the participation of citizens and elected officials in a central role in the EIS process.

Ms. McKay suggested that a Committee be formed to assist in drafting a final version of the Problem Statement. This idea was supported by Roundtable members, including Mr. Hollister and Mr. Lyons, who noted that he "couldn’t imagine drafting a document that’s the product of 32 people" and that a smaller group might make better progress. Mr. Jaffe recommended that a Committee be formed, provided that the Roundtable could reach general consensus on Problem Statement issues at this meeting. In response to Mr. Fekete’s suggestion that Mr. Jaffe ascertain whether "most people can live with this working document," the following comments were made:

1. Mr. Hawkins noted that although he might choose to express some things differently (e.g., clarifying the first paragraph to emphasize the fundamental project challenge of balancing the needs of people and roads with those of environmental/resource issues), he regarded Version 3 as a vastly superior draft that was ready for Committee refinement into a final version.
1. Ms. Lynch agreed that Version 3 should be considered a "working document" appropriate for Committee review and resolution of many small points that still need to be addressed.
1. Ms. Bauer agreed with the idea of establishing a Committee but disagreed that only "small points" of disagreement remain. She emphasized her position that Version 3 represents a step backwards in terms of road-related issues and expressed her particular dissatisfaction that a number of items asked for by the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition have still not been included. Noting that the existing problem is more about east/west than about north/south mobility, she referred to the statement that "there is no adjacent, parallel north-south road that serves as an alternate to Route 1" as one that she believes to be incorrect. She concluded by saying that the Committee must acknowledge that important issues remain to be resolved.
1. Tom Marchwinski, New Jersey Transit, observed that the "transit piece" of the Problem Statement requires additional work and indicated that he would like to discuss relevant transit data with the Committee so that missing information can be incorporated in its draft.

After summarizing Problem Statement issues raised by Roundtable members, Mr. Jaffe concluded that there was consensus to form a Committee to draft the final version. Mr. Fekete urged the Committee to "not become bogged down in chasing after data," since new data will be provided in the coming months. As a final comment, Ms. Brake observed that the Membership Committee had worked so well because of its breadth of representation (in addition to Ms. McKay’s leadership) and emphasized the need to similarly balance the membership of the Problem Statement Committee.

In response to Mr. Jaffe’s request for volunteers, the following persons agreed to serve on the Committee: Paula McGuire (Chairperson), Janine Bauer, Sandra Brillhart, Steve Decter (alternate for Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh), Pam Hersh, Laura Lynch, Tom Marchwinski, David Parris, and Danielle Tucker (Mercer County). Mr. Carnegie will provide staff support to the Committee. In addition, as requested and agreed to by the Roundtable, Ms. Fox and Paul Truban, NJDOT, will attend Committee meetings.

 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Following a brief break, Mr. Jaffe reconvened the Roundtable and asked Helen Neuhaus, Helen Neuhaus & Associates, to facilitate a discussion of project Goals and Objectives. Ms. Neuhaus explained that Roundtable evaluation of alternatives and options for the project will require agreement on criteria with which to screen them and that selection of criteria requires agreement on Goals and Objectives. She presented a list of six broad categories of Goals and Objectives as a starting point for Roundtable consideration. In response to a question from Jim Amon, Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission, regarding the difference between a goal and an objective, Ms. Neuhaus described a goal as a more broadly defined category, with objectives being subcategories to meet that goal.

Ms. Bauer followed up by noting that at an earlier meeting, Roundtable member Richard Barrett distributed a copy of the 11 "shall’s" and "may’s" of NEPA. She requested that these be reviewed at this time. Mr. Carnegie, noting that this information is included in Attachment A to the Roundtable’s "Overview, Rules and Procedures" document, read appropriate sections of the document. After Ms. Neuhaus remarked that the Penns Neck Area EIS process is even more comprehensive and goes well beyond these requirements, Mr. Carnegie reiterated that project alternatives and options will be weighed against the Goals and Objectives. In response to Ms. Fox’s comment that NEPA does not use the term "Goals and Objectives" but instead refers to "Purpose and Need," Mr. Carnegie explained that the concepts of problems, goals and objectives are more easily understood and will be blended into the Purpose and Need section of the EIS, in accordance with NEPA requirements.

Roundtable members then provided preliminary comments on Goals and Objectives, as follows:

1. Mr. Fekete recommended that the Goals and Objectives not contain quantification, such as "parts per million" or "level of service," as this might be too restrictive. Ms. Neuhaus agreed, observing that although many of the concepts suggested for Goals and Objectives are "apple pie" (e.g., "Protect and Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources, River and Watershed"), they still need to be stated. She added that the Goals and Objectives document is a place where the limits and opportunities of the project, including land use, can be discussed.
1. Mr. Lyons distilled the discussion by describing the establishment of Goals and Objectives as the construction of a filter through which all alternatives must pass. He noted that after ranking or "tiering" the criteria, it will be determined how many of these filters an individual alternative must pass through in order to be eligible for further evaluation. Mr. Carnegie agreed with this conceptual view of the Goals and Objectives.
1. In response to Ms. McKay’s comment that specificity is important and that "fuzzy" Goals and Objectives are not desirable, the Roundtable engaged in a discussion of whether specific project data is needed before Goals and Objectives can be determined:

• Project team staff emphasized that although it will not be possible to be extremely specific about a given topic until the appropriate data is available, it may be possible to "strike a balance" and achieve enough precision to define Goals and Objectives.
• Mr. Goodheart observed that a broader framework is a necessary starting point for identifying Goals and Objectives and that documents can be revised later, if necessary, to reflect the results of data analysis.
• Mr. Fekete added that since the EIS must comply with numerous specific requirements (e.g., with regard to historic properties, freshwater wetlands, and endangered species), the Roundtable’s work need not be slowed down until precise data on these topics is obtained.

1. Ms. Bauer observed that this EIS process greatly differs from others in that one ordinarily has a clear and specific project under consideration when EIS preparation begins.
1. Leo Arons, Princeton Borough Merchants, reminded Roundtable participants that they are engaged in this process because of a previous effort to solve a particular problem. He asked rhetorically whether that problem should not be restated so that the Roundtable could either accept or reject it. Mr. Robins responded that the Problem Statement will address this issue, as the first step in a process that will determine what the group wishes to achieve and how to achieve it. He framed the relevant questions as being: What is the transportation need? and What needs to be done?
1. Ms. Hersh remarked that since some Roundtable members may prefer that the project take no action on certain issues, it may make sense to rank goals in terms of their importance and need. Mr. Robins and Mr. Carnegie responded that although there could certainly be differences of opinion over individual goals, it is assumed that all members of the Roundtable agree that they are participating in this process because there are mobility needs in the Penns Neck area. Recalling Mayor Hsueh’s comment regarding the great population growth in the area, Mr. Robins asked Roundtable members to reflect on this fact and consider how the current project can address it.
1. Ms. Tucker remarked that since all of the six proposed Goals and Objectives categories are discussed in the Working Problem Statement, it is perhaps advisable to complete work on that document first. Mr. Decter also inquired about the wisdom of considering Goals and Objectives at the next Roundtable meeting, since a final Problem Statement will not be agreed upon by that time. Mr. Carnegie replied that he is confident that there has been enough progress in discussing the Working Problem Statement to move on and continue discussing Goals and Objectives. Mr. Goodheart agreed, remarking that the work on both documents might be mutually beneficial.

After considering these remarks, Roundtable members began to define specific Goals and Objectives:

1. Mr. Lyons suggested that the Roundtable agree on the objective of never damaging any historic property. Mr. Fekete responded that it is unwise to use the word "never" and suggested using the terminology "try to avoid" instead.
1. Ms. Preston suggested the objective of avoiding adverse traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods. In response, Mayor Hsueh observed that it is unwise to say "do not impact" and preferable to speak in terms of minimizing and mitigating impacts. He added that it is impossible to completely avoid impacts with any project in the vicinity of a residential population. Mr. Amon agreed that it is impossible to have "no impact" in this particular project area.
1. Mr. Fekete reiterated his earlier point that FHWA review of the EIS will ensure compliance with applicable federal laws. Taking exception to this statement, Ms. Bauer expressed her opinion that it is inadvisable to assume that federal law will prevent adverse impacts. She noted that, in spite of federal requirements, NJDOT has completed other projects that had substantial negative impacts and urged the Roundtable not to avoid examining certain issues based on assurances that "federal laws will take care of them."
1. Ms. Bauer offered the following recommendations regarding Goals and Objectives:

• "Transportation: Access, Mobility & Safety" category: Cover vehicle trips, vehicle miles travelled, and level of service under Mobility.
• "Land Use & Economic Development" category: Cover conflict with local land use and open space plans and variable (not single-line) projections.
• Consider cumulative impacts (taking into account other proposed projects). This addition was supported by Mayor Hsueh and other Roundtable members. In response to Mr. Eland’s request for clarification of time projections for examining cumulative impacts, Ms. Bauer noted that this would vary based on specific situations and issues.

1. Mayor Hsueh suggested the goal of evaluating the potential for creating positive environmental impacts.

Concluding that there was Roundtable consensus to continue the Goals and Objectives discussion at the next meeting, Ms. Neuhaus asked members to review the six broad Goals and Objectives categories prior to the meeting and to come to the Roundtable with recommendations. In response to a question from Mr. Eland, she confirmed that it was acceptable to suggest additional categories and emphasized that there should be no constraints on members’ thinking. In response to Ms. Bauer’s request, it was agreed that examples of Goals and Objectives from other projects would be posted on the project web site or emailed to Roundtable members. Before ending the meeting, Ms. Neuhaus read an excerpt from the Goals and Objectives of the Route 9A Reconstruction project in New York City. She explained that although this was a very different project, its process was similar to that of the Roundtable. Ms. Neuhaus added that the Route 9A Goals and Objectives became part of the project’s EIS and were used in screening project alternatives.