Meeting Description Penns Neck Area EIS Roundtable Meeting

Date October 9, 2001 Time 5:00 P.M. Location West Windsor Senior Center

- This was the sixth meeting of the Roundtable.

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

called the meeting to order.

- Jon Carnegie, Transportation Policy Institute (TPU), Rutgers University, announced that after great difficulty in finding a location for the October 24^th Roundtable meeting, it was determined to hold the meeting at Frist Campus Center, Princeton University. Because the parking facility opens at 5:00 P.M. for non-campus events, the meeting time has been rescheduled for 5:30 to 8:30P.M. Directions and parking instructions will be emailed to participants.

- Mr. Carnegie reported that the meeting agenda includes consideration of two categories of actions and alternatives: 1) Travel Demand Management (TDM) actions (e.g., cash-out parking and ride-sharing); and 2) transit actions. It is proposed that these issues be addressed at two concurrent facilitated discussions (similar to what was done with the Goals and Objectives), each of which will involve half the Roundtable group. Halfway through the meeting, the groups will shift to consider the other category of actions.

Helen Neuhaus, Helen Neuhaus & Associates, announced plans for a public Scoping Forum, to be held on Tuesday, December 4^th, from 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., in the Auditorium and Lounge of the Sarnoff Corporation. The Forum is designed to "bring the project out to the public" and provide an even broader opportunity for public comment on the scope of activities being performed for the EIS.

A number of comments were made in response to this announcement:

- Peggy Killmer, Millstone Bypass Alert, suggested that the Scoping Forum will "not really be a hearing." Ms. Neuhaus responded that it will be a "formal scoping session."

- Alan Goodheart, Harrison Street Neighborhood Association (HSNA), asked if it is assumed that the Problem Statement and Goals & Objectives will be completed before the Scoping Forum. Ms. Neuhaus indicated that this is not being assumed.

- Jennifer Jaroski, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, expressed concern that there will not be sufficient content for presentation at the Scoping Forum. Ms. Neuhaus explained that the purpose of the Scoping Forum is to introduce the project and initiate dialogue with the public at large. Specifically, she described the Scoping Forum as a "first step" in opening up the process by explaining scoping and EIS development to a broader public that may not be as aware of what’s going on as those who attend Roundtable meetings. Ms. Neuhaus agreed with Princeton Township Mayor Phyllis Marchand’s characterization of the Scoping Forum as a "roundtable for the public," adding that its major difference is that it is a one-time session that will be formally documented.

- Ms. Killmer commented that the Citizens Committee of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, on which she serves, is on record as opposing the kind of "open sessions" that the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) often holds to introduce projects. Ms. Neuhaus responded by explaining that the Scoping Forum will not be an "open session" but a formal session, with a public record provided by audio-taping and a stenographer. In a follow-up comment, Ms. Killmer maintained that a formal session needs a specific beginning and end time, unlike the Scoping Forum, which "appears to be an open-ended event that goes all day and night." In support of Ms. Neuhaus’s characterization of the Scoping Forum as a formal event, Mr. Jaffe noted that there will be formal notification of the public. Ms. Neuhaus elaborated by indicating that display ads will be placed in local publications 30 days prior to the event and that letters of invitation will be sent to everyone on the project mailing list.

- Mayor Marvin Reed, Princeton Borough, suggested that a venue other than the Sarnoff Corporation be selected for the Scoping Forum. Referring to Sarnoff’s current development plan, which is under consideration by West Windsor Township, Mayor Reed cautioned that holding the session at Sarnoff would "cloud the issue." After Ms. Neuhaus briefly reported on attempts to obtain a different facility, Martin Robins, Director, TPI, agreed that a venue other than Sarnoff would be preferable. He added that the project team had searched in vain for another site that met the facility criteria and was available during the preferred week. Discussion of this issue included the following comments:

- Patrick Lyons, Washington Roads Elms Preservation Trust, addressed the issue of the date for the Scoping Forum, emphasizing that December is a very busy month. He suggested that the Forum either be moved back into January or held before Thanksgiving (perhaps as early as two weeks from now). Ms. Neuhaus indicated that January is very late for a Scoping Forum for a project initiated last Spring. On the other hand, it is not possible to schedule the Scoping Forum within the next two weeks, due to preparation and notification requirements.

- Mr. Hollister questioned the choice of day for the Scoping Forum, by saying that it is wrong to expect members of the public to take off from work to attend an all-day event on a Tuesday. He recommended that the Forum be held on a Saturday. Ms. Neuhaus replied that all-day attendance is not necessary and that an individual will have the opportunity to speak at any convenient time during the day or evening public comment periods. Mr. Hollister followed up by noting that some persons will want to attend the entire session in order to hear everything that is said. Ms. Killmer agreed, by reiterating her earlier comment that what is needed is an "old-fashioned public meeting with a beginning and an ending," at which people can both speak and listen to what their neighbors are saying. In response to these comments, Ms. Neuhaus confirmed that the tape and transcript of the Scoping Forum will be available to anyone wishing to review, but unable to attend, the entire proceeding.

- Ms. Killmer inquired about the types of displays that will be presented and whether the presentation will focus on Roundtable work or content formulated by NJDOT. After noting that extensive displays will not be needed and that the presentation will be made by the project team (rather than by NJDOT staff), Ms. Neuhaus and Mr. Robins confirmed that the presentation will reflect the process in which the Roundtable is already involved, rather than provide an "independent product." It will include discussion of the Problem Statement and Goals and Objectives composed by the Roundtable and will not include presentation of NJDOT’s former plan. Andy Fekete, NJDOT, contributed to the discussion by observing that the Scoping Forum could serve as a means of informing the public of the status of work being performed by the Roundtable.

- Noting that there have been disagreements at Roundtable sessions concerning the exact wording of specific documents, Mr. Lyons suggested that the content of the Scoping Forum presentation be shared with the Roundtable prior to the event. Project team member Chitra Radin, Radin Consulting, responded to this suggestion by emphasizing that the intent of the Scoping Forum is to elicit public comment. She elaborated by describing the purpose of the presentation as being to simply familiarize the public with how the process works and to provide a background that will allow members of the public to formulate and share their thoughts. Ms. Radin underscored the point that the Forum should be an open session in order to convey the idea that the process is open and that public input is needed. Additional comments on this issue included the following:

- Mr. Goodheart suggested a large-size map of the area as a useful display.

- Ken Koschek, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, asked whether a separate scoping meeting will be held for public agencies. Mr. Robins replied that an agency scoping meeting will be held at a later time, when specific alternatives are under consideration.

- In response to a further question from Mr. Koschek, Ms. Neuhaus confirmed that written statements will be accepted for a specified period of time after the Scoping Forum and included in the formal record of the proceedings.

- Richard Barrett, STOP, inquired whether the "description of the project" is the Public Register Notice of Intent or something else. He also asked for identification of exactly what is being scoped. Mr. Robins responded that the project description is the one delineated in the Rutgers TPI contract, which is available on the project website (www.pennsneckareaeis.org).

- Victor Hall, Princeton Junction residents, asked if any decisions will be made at the Scoping Forum. Ms. Neuhaus replied in the negative, reiterating that its purpose is simply to further open the EIS process. She confirmed Mr. Hall’s follow-up comment that citizens unable to attend the Scoping Forum will have ample opportunities to make their voices heard later in the process.

- Ms. Mahoney noted that since many members of the public may attend the evening session of the Scoping Forum, it may be necessary to extend the event to a second day. Mr. Jaffe concurred, noting that a second evening session could be added. He concluded discussion of this topic by urging Roundtable members to suggest alternate sites for the Forum to Mr. Robins and Ms. Neuhaus and ensuring the group that these will be investigated in an effort to obtain a suitable location other than Sarnoff.

For informational purposes, Pam Hersh, Princeton University, elaborated upon the public announcement made on October 8^th that the University has reached agreement with the Sarnoff Corporation to purchase 90 acres of Sarnoff’s 345-acre West Windsor campus. The 90 acres include the portion of the property that fronts Route 1 and a section along the Millstone River. Ms. Hersh stated that the University views the transaction as a "win-win-win situation" for itself, Sarnoff and West Windsor Township, as it will provide Sarnoff with the financial resources needed to renovate its current facilities, while scaling back its plans for new development on the property, an issue of great concern to the Township and the community. She added that the University obtained the land for the same reasons it acquired its West Windsor property west of Route 1 in 1922: possible long-term development. Ms. Hersh emphasized that Princeton University has no short-term development plans for the land.

- In response to questions from Mayor Reed, Ms. Hersh confirmed that the sales agreement is contingent upon West Windsor Township approval of its modified development plan and that it includes the University’s acquisition of development rights to the property. Reacting to this, Mayor Reed stated that the sale ensures eventual development of the property and makes it obvious that previous assumptions regarding proposed Route 1/Penns Neck Area improvements, which showed no development on the Sarnoff property, require amendment to reflect projected traffic increases from eventual development on this land. Ms. Hersh agreed but pointed out that, even without this sale, the prior assumptions required modification to reflect Sarnoff’s development plan. She added that Princeton University’s ownership of the property guarantees that there will be no development for a long time, noting that the University’s other property in West Windsor has remained undeveloped for 79 years. Ms. Hersh added that, given the value of the property, it is unimaginable that an adequate amount of public open-space money could be found to purchase this land at the present time. In the ensuing discussion, Roundtable members provided the following comments:

- Ms. McGuire, Chair of the Problem Statement Committee, reported that the Committee held a productive meeting on October 2^nd but that a finished Working Problem Statement is not yet ready for Roundtable consideration.

- Mr. Carnegie reported that the Committee reached basic consensus on a primary study area consisting of a somewhat flexible five-mile radius of the Route 1/Washington Road intersection, and a larger secondary study area. The secondary area will provide the travel demand and demographic context for the project studies and will be used in the regional modeling effort.

- Mr. Carnegie also noted that the Committee had "agreed to disagree" on the topic of data needs but had asked the project team to provide it with a data needs status report (distributed to the full Roundtable at this meeting, along with other requested information).

- Mr. Carnegie reported that conduct of the Origin & Destination (O&D) survey was postponed, due to concerns over drivers’ reactions to being stopped, in the wake of the September 11^th tragedy. Survey distribution will now begin at six locations with no advance notice to motorists. Mr. Carnegie also reported that his discussion with URS concerning the anticipated truck driver response rate confirmed the concern expressed by Candace Preston, HSNA, that response is likely to be poor. He will therefore explore alternative means of obtaining O&D truck data with URS. In response to a suggestion from Leo Arons, Princeton Borough Merchants, Mr. Carnegie is coordinating with URS and NJDOT to develop a longer survey (to be distributed to a small sample of survey recipients) to obtain additional data, including information on intermediate stops.

- In response to questions from Ms. McGuire and Ms. Jaroski, Mr. Carnegie and Mr. Robins noted that there is no decision to date on how to address Route 92 as a potential new roadway in the Penns Neck Area EIS secondary study area. Mr. Robins observed that Route 92 will be examined as part of the build/no-build scenario. Mr. Carnegie added that Route 92 can be shown on the Existing Conditions Map as a dotted line.

- Mr. Carnegie reported that area maps will be available within one week.

- In response to Ms. Shapiro’s comment that intersection queue delays on Route 1 have changed as a result of NJDOT’s traffic signal timing modifications, Mr. Carnegie noted that these changes can be incorporated into the traffic modeling.

Mr. Carnegie distributed the Proposed Goals and Objectives document, which attempts to synthesize the approximately 100 goals suggested by Roundtable members at the September 24^th meeting into a workable list of Goals and Objectives. He explained that related goals were grouped into categories and then combined into a single goal statement, which was supported by a series of objectives. Mr. Carnegie noted that the regrouped information appears on the right-hand side of the document; the originally suggested goals from which they derive are shown on the left-hand side of the page. He then suggested that the Goals and Objectives discussion begin with consideration of the first Goal: Improve transportation access, mobility and safety for residents, visitors and employees traveling in the study area on all modes of transportation. In the ensuing discussion, Roundtable members also commented on the following general issues:

- Noelle McKay, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, remarked that she did not have adequate time to review the Proposed Goals and Objectives, which were emailed to her last Friday. She noted that she would prefer to receive documents seven days in advance of meetings. Mr. Jaffe agreed that members should be provided with important documents sufficiently in advance of the next Roundtable meeting to allow them to adequately prepare for the discussion. He added that project staff should inform members if documents will be late and when they can be expected. Ms. Neuhaus concurred that the project team should accommodate Ms. McKay’s request.

- Ms. Mahoney followed-up on Ms. McKay’s comment by suggesting that Roundtable meetings occur too close together, thereby creating a burden for all involved. She also noted that she did not have adequate time to review the Proposed Goals and Objectives and compare the document with the original 100 suggestions. Reiterating the importance of formulating Goals and Objectives as a critical step in the EIS process, she urged the Roundtable to not "rush through it." After noting that she had identified subtle differences in language resulting from combining several suggested goals into a single goal or objective, Ms. Mahoney recommended that a Goals and Objectives Committee be formed. This idea was supported by Mr. Hollister and Ms. Jaroski, who also suggested that the Roundtable meet every three weeks, rather than twice a month.

It was finally decided to devote the remainder of this meeting to review of the Goals and Objectives document and to continue the discussion on October 24^th. Jim Amon, Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission, supported this approach, by remarking that members could use the intervening time to fully consider the document and prepare for the October 24^th discussion. Ms. Lynch agreed but suggested that a committee be formed, if the Goals and Objectives are not finalized at that time.

- In response to Mr. Aron’s remark that he had expected to receive a finalized Problem Statement against which to measure the Goals and Objectives, Mr. Carnegie emphasized that parallel development of the Problem Statement and Goals and Objectives will not compromise either effort. He explained that once both documents are finalized, the Roundtable can begin to formulate Actions and Alternatives, which will be measured to determine whether they meet the Goals and Objectives. Mr. Goodheart remarked that it would be beneficial to synthesize the Goals and Objectives into a simpler document, in order to facilitate assessing if a proposed action meets a particular goal. Ms. Neuhaus expressed agreement with Mr. Goodheart’s statement that a goal should be regarded as a test used to evaluate the proposed Actions and Alternatives but cautioned Roundtable members not to expect that every action will support every goal.

- Ms. McKay suggested that, in order to maximize productive use of Roundtable meeting time, it may be possible to share the informational agenda items of some future meetings with Roundtable members by an alternate means.

- Ms. Brake suggested that the broader concept of Goals and Objectives be addressed by regarding each goal as having objectives "packed" into it. She and Ms. McKay then referenced various ways in which the goal can be "unpacked." Ms. Neuhaus suggested regarding an objective as something that supports a goal.

- Ms. Killmer recommended that the full list of 100 suggested goals be retained. Ms. Neuhaus responded that this is unworkable and furthermore unnecessary, since many of the suggested goals have similar meanings.

- Mr. Amon recommended that, in the interest of making the Goals and Objectives as positive as possible, the word "discourage" should replace "do not encourage" wherever that phrase appears.

Discussion of the transportation goal and its supporting objectives included the following comments:

GOAL: Improve transportation access, mobility and safety for residents, visitors, and employees traveling in the study area on all modes of transportation.

- Ms. Jaroski recommended that the goal be reworded to add the word "alternatives" after "transportation access." In response, Mr. Carnegie and Ms. Neuhaus pointed out that the sentence ends with "on all modes of transportation." Ms. Killmer’s suggestion to begin, rather than end, the sentence with this phrase, in order to emphasize the variety of transportation alternatives, was adopted.

- Ms. Killmer commented that this objective does not appear to conform with current transportation thinking that all roads should be part of a "fine-grain network" of streets. Mr. Carnegie responded by expressing his view that it is appropriate to have only local traffic on residential streets and non-local traffic on other roads. Michael LaPlace, Plainsboro Township, added that Roundtable documents should avoid "planner-ese" such as "fine-grain network."

- Ms. Crawford expressed her view that the stated objective is very different from the one proposed by Ms. Killmer. Steve Decter, West Windsor Township, added that while congestion can be relieved on any individual street or intersection, the specific action must be reconciled with the local/non-local traffic issue. Ms. Brake pointed out that the two statements are not mutually exclusive and suggested adding language to emphasize that the objective is to use "appropriate streets for appropriate functions."

- Mayor Marchand observed that an important thought inherent in the original goal statement, Improve neighborhood quality by ensuring traffic travels on appropriate roads designed for their purposes, is not reflected in the revised objective. She recommended amending this objective to read Return residential streets to local traffic and return other traffic to appropriate roads. Mr. Carnegie agreed to revise the document to reflect this change.

OBJECTIVE: Improve mobility on Route 1, reduce intersection delays, and reduce the use of Route 1 by east-west traffic seeking access to sites along Route 1.

- Ms. Shapiro expressed uncertainty about the meaning of this objective. Mr. Robins explained that it addresses how the current roadway system forces people to use inappropriate roads to reach their destinations. He offered the example of drivers traveling to Carnegie Center who use Route 1 to reach Alexander Road. Ms. Shapiro responded that this revised objective, along with several others, either does not accurately capture the meaning of the original goal or is simply poorly worded and confusing. Ms. Mahoney supported Ms. Shapiro, adding that the substance of some of the 100 originally suggested goals has been removed and that some other items appear to have been added, based on conversations apart from Roundtable proceedings. She alluded to this fact in reiterating her support for a Goals and Objectives Committee.

- In response to Ms. McGuire’s request for a definition of mobility, Mr. Carnegie offered ‘getting around from Point A to Point B’ and Ms. McKay referenced traffic reliability. Noting that Reed Ewing, a nationally-known expert on the topic of mobility resides in Princeton, Ms. Killmer suggested that he be invited to address the Roundtable.

- Ms. Lynch asked that this objective be rephrased to include the originally suggested wording of placing a "time limit" on reliability improvements.

OBJECTIVE: Improve the flow of traffic on east-west roads in the study area (on both sides of Route1), maintain an equitable balance of traffic on various routes west of Route 1, and do not encourage heavy truck movements on these east-west roads.

- Ms. Shapiro recommended that this objective be revised to read "maintain an equitable balance of traffic on various routes east and west of Route 1."

OBJECTIVE: Encourage a balanced use of transportation modes for trips to employment sites, train stations and other destinations in the primary study area.

- Ms. Shapiro’s comment that the revised objective does not include the original goals of reducing VMT and SOV led to an extended discussion, in which the following comments were made:

OBJECTIVE: Provide better access for pedestrians and bicyclists.

- Ms. McKay suggested that this objective be revised to reflect the need for "better access and safety."

GENERAL

- Mr. Barrett remarked that the Proposed Goals and Objectives document contains "twice- distilled statements" that eliminate the substance of suggestions made by STOP. In response to his particular reference to Develop appropriate and logical termini which take into account other transportation projects, Mr. Carnegie pointed out that this suggested goal has been synthesized with several others and appears as the objective Create a process that meets or exceeds Federal requirements.

- In response to Ms. Lynch’s request for a definition of "quality of life," Mr. Carnegie pointed out that the phrase has been removed from the Proposed Goals and Objectives statement.

- Ms. Crawford urged that Historic Berrien City be included in the list of historic resources.

- Jack Kanarek, NJTransit, suggested that using the word "ensure" in some objectives (e.g., Ensure that access from cross-streets and driveways along Route 1 is safe and efficient) gives priority to these objectives. Mr. Carnegie accepted Ms. Mahoney’s rewording of this objective to read Provide safe and efficient access from cross-streets and driveways along Route 1. It was also agreed to eliminate the word ensure from the final transportation objective, which was reworded to read Provide effective transportation options for the poor, seniors and young people. However, it was agreed that the word ensure should be retained in references to infrastructure (e.g., structurally deficient bridges).

- Mr. Jaffe concluded the discussion by noting that Mr. Carnegie will prepare a new draft of the Proposed Goals and Objectives that incorporates the work done at this meeting. He asked all Roundtable members to review the amended draft (which will be provided to them no later than Friday, October 12^th) prior to the October 24^th meeting. The issue of creating a Goals and Objectives Committee will be addressed at that time, if the group is unable to make substantial progress in the Goals and Objectives discussion.