• This was the third 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 asked Roundtable members to consider one of the documents that had been transmitted to them by email in advance of the meeting: the six-page "Overview, Rules and Procedures" for the Roundtable. Mr. Jaffe stated that although most of the content of this document had been discussed at previous meetings, there were a few new items, one of which he wished to highlight. Referring to the "Membership Responsibilities" paragraph on Page 2, he emphasized that it is important for members to openly express their perspectives on issues under discussion during Roundtable deliberations and to share their views with all members of the Roundtable, rather than only expressing them privately, to project team staff or others, outside of Roundtable meetings. He specifically noted that at the June 27^th meeting, some members had expressed dissatisfaction that events were proceeding too rapidly and that the facilitator had, at the June 14^th meeting, occasionally arrived at a conclusion of consensus when, in fact, some meeting participants had simply remained silent while not necessarily agreeing. In addition, he reported that some members chose to communicate their unhappiness with the events of the June 27^th meeting in subsequent conversations with project team staff, after having failed to raise any objections during the meeting. Mr. Jaffe reiterated that it is inappropriate and unproductive to communicate in this manner.

Mr. Jaffe introduced Jon Carnegie, Transportation Policy Institute (TPI), Rutgers University, who discussed the remainder of the "Overview, Rules and Procedures" document, as follows:

• The "Roundtable Charge" is basically unchanged.
• Attachment A (Pages 6 & 7 of the document) was created in response to questions raised at previous meetings regarding Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rules and regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its requirements for the "scoping" process for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
• As Mr. Jaffe previously noted, members are urged in the "Membership Responsibilities" section to express their views openly at meetings. However, if members choose to express their views between meetings, such comments should be transmitted to the Project Team in writing, so that they can be shared with the entire Roundtable.
• As noted in the "Subcommittees" paragraph, it is anticipated that such bodies will be formed from time to time as needed, and Roundtable members will be asked to volunteer to serve. Only Roundtable members will be appointed to a subcommittee.
• The "Meeting Documentation" section of the document states that Roundtable Meeting Reports will be prepared and distributed by project team staff. To avoid lengthy discussions at meetings regarding suggested amendments to the Reports, such suggestions should be transmitted to the project team in writing; they will be appended to the Report as a formal part of the meeting record.
• The "Distribution of Materials by Roundtable Members" section urges members to make every effort to provide any materials that members intend to distribute at an upcoming Roundtable meeting to the project team with sufficient lead time. This will enable project team staff to transmit these materials by email along with the agenda, Meeting Report and other materials prepared for that meeting. If this is not possible, or if a member chooses to personally distribute hard copies at the meeting, at least 50 copies must be provided for distribution at a time the facilitator deems appropriate given the meeting agenda.

Roundtable members then discussed the "Overview, Rules and Procedures" document, by providing the following comments:

• Janine Bauer, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, proposed that the "Process by Consensus" section be amended, specifically noting that she views the definition of consensus as "agreement that a particular course of action is one that most members of the Roundtable can live with" as being inadequate. Ms. Bauer expressed the opinion that the Roundtable should not move ahead with an action, if a Roundtable member representing a group that would be significantly impacted by that action has a major objection to the decision. She gave two hypothetical examples: 1) A particular road alignment was chosen, but a group representing residents of the neighborhood in which the road would be located had a major objection to it; or 2) A specific transit option was selected, but the Roundtable member representing NJ Transit had a major objection, indicating that such a transit option would never be implemented by NJ Transit.
• In response to Ms. Bauer’s comments, some Roundtable members suggested that this change would be similar to requiring Roundtable unanimity or to granting veto power to individual members.
• In response to Mr. Jaffe’s suggestion that it might be adequate to note in the Meeting Report that the member raised a significant objection, Ms. Bauer replied that her objection was not merely a question of documentation but went to the heart of the meaning of consensus. Peggy Killmer, Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition, agreed, saying that if even one member has a serious problem with a decision, then the Roundtable must "dig deeper" and seek to address that member’s concerns. Ms. Killmer added that an idea should be dropped and another solution sought if it is not possible to arrive at true consensus regarding a decision.
• There was further discussion of how "consensus" should be defined, with many members expressing the hope that some "middle ground" could be reached. Ultimately Martin Robins, TPI, recommended specific amending language. After a slight modification recommended by Ms. Bauer, this sentence was added to the definition: "Serious dissatisfaction by affected stakeholders shall be given due recognition."
• Laura Lynch, Sierra Club, asked for clarification of the rule regarding members sharing their views only with the entire Roundtable. She expressed concern that this would forbid umbrella groups such as the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition from holding meetings to discuss issues under consideration by the Roundtable. Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Carnegie assured Ms. Lynch that this is not the intention of the rule, which is simply to encourage members to speak up at meetings, rather than to express their views solely in private to project team staff.

• Michael LaPlace, Plainsboro Township, reacted to some of the earlier discussion by observing that it is not useful to place Roundtable members into categories (e.g., "environmentalists," "transportation advocates"), as this could serve to divide the body into factions.

A copy of the "Overview, Rules and Procedures" document, as amended, will be circulated via email and included in invitation packages to new invitees.

Noelle MacKay, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, Chair of the Roundtable Membership Committee, presented the Committee’s report, as follows:

• The Committee met on July 12^th and reviewed information supplied by the project team regarding criteria used in determining the original Roundtable membership. It also considered issues raised by members at previous Roundtable meetings. Among these topics were: 1) "Size matters" – the objective of keeping membership to a manageable number; 2) Fairness, equity and the importance of assuring that all affected parties and differing viewpoints are adequately represented; and 3) Consistency and commitment are essential - members must be willing to commit to participating in the Roundtable for the full two- year length of the EIS process.
• In examining the original membership, the Committee decided that six members who represented government agencies that would later make regulatory decisions within the EIS process should be moved to a special "advisory panel" to the Roundtable, which would participate fully in Roundtable meetings without being formal members. This action allowed the Committee to recommend the addition of seven new members, while only increasing the full, formal Roundtable membership by one (from 26 to 27). Of the recommended new members, two are citizen groups that had requested membership: West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives and Harrison Street Neighborhood Association. Five other groups recommended for membership represent business interests: Mercer County Chamber of Commerce, Princeton Township Merchants Association, Princeton Borough Merchants Association, West Windsor Division of the Mercer County Chamber of Commerce, and Princeton Junction Merchants Association.

• The Committee recommended that all members, prior and new, be sent a Letter of Invitation to the Roundtable, which would describe the Roundtable’s purpose and how it fits into NEPA requirements. The letter should include a list of all members and a definition (provided by the member group itself) of the group’s mission and geographic boundaries, if applicable. It should also enumerate membership responsibilities, including the previously-discussed obligation to speak up and express the group’s views at Roundtable meetings, and the dual responsibility of representatives of umbrella groups to keep their member entities informed of Roundtable proceedings and to present the opinions of their constituent groups at meetings.

The Membership Committee’s recommendations were discussed, as follows:

• Andras Fekete, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), expressed support for the Committee’s report, with the exception of the establishment of the advisory panel which, as recommended, would include NJDOT. He pointed out that while his agency and the others proposed for this change in status will indeed be making decisions regarding the project and the EIS, other members of the Roundtable will also have power and impact on issues under discussion, including the four Mayors who serve on the Roundtable. Noting that the FHWA member (not present at this meeting) shared his view, he emphasized that this separation of status will split the Roundtable.
• Dianne Brake, Regional Planning Partnership, a member of the Membership Committee, responded that the Committee had observed that agency representatives were often silent at the two previous Roundtable meetings. Since the aim of the Roundtable is to achieve consensus among stakeholders it was therefore thought that advisory panel status might be an appropriate option for public agency members.
• Donna Lewis, Mercer County Board of Freeholders, expressed the view that NJDOT is clearly a stakeholder in this process, since the Department is the owner of Route 1 and has an interest in achieving mobility on that roadway; she therefore maintained that NJDOT deserved the same status as other stakeholders.
• Ms. Bauer expressed the view that it might be inappropriate for some agencies to participate as members of the Roundtable if they later have a regulatory role in the EIS process. She offered the hypothetical example of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection having to rule on a required wetlands permit for the project. Ms. Bauer felt that "a lot of questions will be raised" in a situation where such an agency also participated in a body such as the Roundtable which made decisions that led to the selection of the project. However, she added that NJDOT and NJT were in a different category, and that in fact she might favor the participation of additional agencies (she offered Fish and Wildlife as an example).
• After listening to the discussion, Ms. Brake concluded that while there is merit to the Committee’s rationale for recommending that the six agency representatives become an advisory panel, she would, on reflection, prefer that they remain as full members.
• Mr. Jaffe suggested that the Roundtable consider the Committee’s recommendations in toto, with this change. Ms. Killmer recommended that the Committee’s report be adopted, and Mr. Jaffe concluded that it was the consensus of the Roundtable to do so.

It was decided that Mr. Carnegie and project team staff will draft the Letter of Invitation to Roundtable members and that Committee members will approve the final version. Mr. Jaffe suggested that the Membership Committee become a standing committee of the Roundtable, with the project team providing staff support, as needed.

The Roundtable discussed Version 2 of the draft Problem Statement, which was distributed to members by email in advance of the meeting. Mr. Carnegie reported that, since the June 27^th meeting, comments were received from many members. In preparing this new draft version, project team members attempted to incorporate as many of these comments as possible. In addition, an Issues Docket has been established to maintain a running list of issues and concerns that were included in members’ comments but were not appropriate for inclusion in a Problem Statement.

In response to members’ requests, Mr. Carnegie promised to include a date on future draft documents and to attempt to transmit materials to members farther in advance of meetings. He noted that, while the documents for this meeting were distributed by the "drop-dead" deadline of one week prior to the meeting, they would have gone out sooner if not for the desire to incorporate all members’ comments, including those received later than the requested deadline. Rather than ignore the late comments, the project team decided to take an extra few days to incorporate them into the new draft.

Review of the Problem Statement began with a discussion of language, definitions, and procedural issues.

• Ms. Brake observed that, despite an evident attempt to eliminate subjective language from the Problem Statement (as had been recommended by Roundtable members), there still were many such words and phrases in the new draft. She listed those which she found in the first paragraph alone: "tremendous," "low-density," "a small, central city," and "imbalanced." Ms. Brake urged precision – the use of exact quantities and boundaries, rather than generalized words or terms. However, Aubrey Haines, Chamber of Commerce of the Princeton Area, observed that if this Problem Statement is to serve as the introduction to a much larger document (as was confirmed by Mr. Carnegie), it should contain broader generalities, with the idea that more detailed enumerations will come later.
• Richard Eland, Princeton Junction Communities, asked if the Problem Statement is similar to a Mission Statement for an organization. Mr. Carnegie replied that it is a touchstone for future discussions on project Goals and Objectives and possible solutions to the problems it describes.
• Ms. Lewis suggested that the Problem Statement include a preliminary paragraph that describes its purpose and intentions. She added that since greater detail will be contained in the Statement of Existing Conditions, a substantial level of detail does not need to be included in the Problem Statement.
• Ms. Lewis also observed that some things that might not currently be considered part of the problem could very well be perceived as such in the future. She therefore suggested that the Roundtable begin each meeting by asking, "Is there anything new that we’ve learned that would require us to modify the Problem Statement?" This would allow a framework for the Problem Statement to be adopted now but modified or redefined as technical data becomes available.
• Ms. Killmer followed up on this comment by remarking that it is critical to not simply accept certain assertions as true, without any supporting data. For example, there should be no statements regarding accident rates or emergency response times without factual proof. Instead, this information could be expressed as "accident rates and emergency response times need to be investigated."
• Mr. Eland then offered a metaphor: The Roundtable would at this time "frame the picture," without actually beginning to paint.
• Ms. Killmer expressed concern that the entire process is focused too much on words and that this will limit the Roundtable. She reported that a master plan process in which she had been involved in Kentucky had begun with participants drawing a picture of their vision of Louisville. Mr. Carnegie offered to obtain an aerial photograph of the Penns Neck area that was prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), if the Roundtable wishes to use it. Candace Preston, Harrison Street Neighborhood Association, offered her view that words are necessary, since some things must be written down and included in the EIS.
• Paula McGuire, West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives, remarked that Version 2 of the Problem Statement is very difficult to read because of its narrative format. Ms. McGuire expressed her opinion that the draft submitted by Roundtable member Jean Mahoney, which was in list form, is a better document to work from and suggested that it be used as the working draft. Ms. Bauer followed up by asking why the draft that she submitted at the June 27^th meeting (subsequently modified and resubmitted by Ms. Mahoney on behalf of numerous groups) was disregarded by the project team and replaced with "Version 2," a completely new document. In response, Mr. Robins explained that he believes that Version 2 includes every idea presented in the documents prepared by Ms. Bauer and Ms. Mahoney. He added that it is his experience that people prefer working from a narrative draft rather than a list of bullet points and that the narrative format is a more effective way of telling a story.
• Sarah Hollister, Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust, recommended that the term "Penns Neck Area" be defined, to which Mr. Carnegie replied that the boundaries of the Project Study Area will be defined at a later point in the process.

Project team member Chitra Radin, Radin Consulting, then briefly discussed the progression of the EIS process. She explained that one of the first steps involves defining the problem to be studied in the EIS. In effect, the stakeholders, through the Roundtable, will be telling the Project Team what the problem is through their consensus on the Problem Statement. This will be followed by Roundtable assistance in defining the Project Goals and Objectives. The Problem Statement and Goals and Objectives will essentially set the parameters for the first chapter of the EIS. Ms. Radin continued by indicating that agreement on the Problem Statement will facilitate defining the study area and describing the existing conditions in the corridor.

• Ms. Bauer echoed previous speakers in emphasizing the importance of the Problem Statement and its direct linkage to the EIS Statement of Purpose and Need, which she described as the heart of the entire process. Ms. Bauer also underscored the fact that the Problem Statement and the Statement of Existing Conditions are completely different and must be clearly and correctly defined and distinguished.
• Mr. Fekete contributed to this discussion by pointing out that a major section of the EIS will describe the Existing Conditions. He further explained that in order for the EIS to be approved, the description of Existing Conditions must contain accurate, detailed, up-to-date information. He assured Roundtable members that although the necessary data is not yet available, it will be developed. In the interim, he urged them to proceed with drafting their documents using general concepts that can be supported and verified at a later date.
• In further comments on this issue, Mr. Robins explained that the Project Team prepared the draft Existing Conditions Statement solely as a document that might be useful in facilitating understanding of the problem. He confirmed that it is essential to agree upon the Problem Statement before moving on to the next step and emphasized that the Existing Conditions Statement will be further expanded and continually refined as additional technical information becomes available.
• Jack Kanarek, NJ Transit, observed that "wordsmithing" of the Problem Statement is likely to continue for some time. He therefore suggested that the Roundtable step back and examine the issue of "quality of life." He expressed the view that this issue, which he articulated as a general sense that people are unhappy with current conditions in the area, could be used as the source from which decisions about modes of travel could be made. Ms. Killmer and Ms. Lynch disagreed, saying that the term "quality of life" was difficult to define and should be avoided. Ms. Killmer alternatively described the issue as being one of scale and definition.
• Ms. MacKay agreed with Mr. Kanarek’s suggestion that Roundtable members "step back" and consider the question of what the problem is. She suggested that members "throw out ideas." Rosemary Anderson, DVRPC, agreed that members should discuss the problem, rather than examine the draft Problem Statement word by word. Mr. Jaffe decided that, following a brief break, the Roundtable would proceed with an "open session," at which members could present their own views on what constituted the problem.

After reconvening the Roundtable, Mr. Jaffe opened the floor to discussion of ideas concerning how the Problem Statement should define the problem. Comments included the following:

• Joe O’Neill, representing Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed, noted that Princeton’s opposition to the Millstone Bypass was based on the fact that the project, as proposed, dealt only with the problem of north-south congestion, while ignoring east-west mobility. While Route 1 improvements would likely relieve north-south traffic, the Borough’s view is that any proposed project must not exacerbate traffic conditions in the communities that sit astride the east-west routes. Mr. O’Neill also remarked upon the estimated 40% increase in truck traffic in the area. He observed that changes in warehousing procedures have resulted in a situation where, at any given moment, a large percentage of inventory is on trucks being transported, rather than sitting in the warehouse. Mr. Robins agreed, noting that this had been confirmed to project team staff in their recent interview with representatives of the New Jersey Motor Truck Association (NJMTA).
• Bill Enslin, Princeton Township Committeeman, representing Mayor Phyllis Marchand, identified two components of the problem: 1) Elimination of the original route for I-95, resulting in creation of an interstate traffic problem on Route 1; and 2) Land-use policies that do not balance the use and the user, which is a goal of "smart growth."
• George Ververides, Middlesex County, also offered two points: 1) The need to consider regional, as well as local, impacts and to acknowledge the tremendous impact of developments on Route 1 north and south of the Penns Neck area; and 2) The need to examine all modes of transportation -- bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well as mass transit.
• Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, West Windsor Township, agreed that regional issues should be examined, but stressed the importance of looking at the realities of the situation. He specifically noted the following:
• The tremendous increase in West Windsor traffic that resulted from construction of the Hightstown Bypass.
• A high incidence of traffic accidents on Route 1, between Harrison Street and Alexander Road. He remarked that this problem is aggravated by the inability of the old infrastructure in the Penns Neck area to accommodate the current level of truck traffic.
• The importance of east-west access for emergency vehicles, especially the ability of these vehicles to reach Princeton Medical Center from West Windsor and Plainsboro Township.
• Air pollution caused by traffic.
• Ms. McGuire expressed some disagreement with Mayor Hsueh, saying that she has not seen accurate figures to support the premise that there are many accidents in the Route 1/Penns Neck area. She also reported that a fireman who recently spoke at a meeting of the West Windsor Planning Board reported that fire trucks experience no difficulty in reaching Princeton by way of Washington Road, since automobiles accommodate the trucks by pulling over to make way.
• In support of Mayor Hsueh’s position, Mayor Peter Cantu, Plainsboro Township, remarked that public safety is a major issue from Plainsboro’s perspective and that he finds it difficult to believe that longer emergency response times are not occurring under current traffic conditions. Ms. Bauer responded by noting that her draft of the Problem Statement indicated that "further study and documentation is needed" and that it specifically referenced the Princeton Medical Center.
• Ms. Bauer asked the Project Team to explain why the concept of auto-dependence, which was emphasized in her previously-submitted draft of the Problem Statement, is not included in Version 2. Mr. Robins indicated that he believes this concept is included but is merely expressed in a different way.
• Ms. Brake remarked that since auto-dependance derives from land use patterns, it is impossible to discuss the issue without moving on to land use. She suggested adding another section to the draft Problem Statement to cover such issues as economics, density, and land use. Ms. Killmer agreed, saying that it is essential to discuss the scale of auto-dependance. Ms. Lynch added that open space is another important issue, in fact one that was a critical factor in opposing the Millstone Bypass.
• Ms. Bauer expressed some dismay at the "open session" approach to the Problem Statement, saying that relating anecdotes appears to be a step backwards. Noting that the Project Team had done a good job in listing the components of the problem in Version 2 of the Problem Statement, she emphasized that these items now need to be bolstered with facts and detail.
• Agreeing with earlier speakers, Mayor Cantu suggested that the Roundtable return to the more traditional method of working from the draft document. Mr. Jaffe concurred, noting that substantive suggestions at this meeting might provide the Roundtable with a new draft of the Problem Statement that could be agreed upon at the next meeting. This would allow the group to move on to more "creative stuff," such as the Goals and Objectives.
• Recalling a suggestion by Pam Hersh, Princeton University, that the Problem Statement could instead be called an "Issue Statement," Mr. Haines recommended that the Roundtable focus on opportunities rather than problems. He underscored the point that the process presents a great opportunity for positive change and urged Roundtable members to think of it in this way and thereby create a more supportive working environment, rather than one in which members view each other as opponents.
• Ms. Lynch responded by remarking that "issues" is a politically correct way of saying "problems" and that it is unnecessary for the Roundtable to be "PC." She also agreed with Ms. Bauer’s earlier recommendation that the Roundtable work from the various drafts of the Problem Statement instead of "re-inventing the wheel" and tossing out ideas for inclusion.
• Mr. O’Neill expressed support for Mr. Haines’ approach and echoed his statements on the enormous opportunities presented by the EIS process.
• Ms. MacKay remarked that it is important to focus on solutions, rather than to dwell on the former Millstone Bypass project. She also asked where the Roundtable was headed, once the Problem Statement was drafted. Mr. Carnegie replied that discussion would then focus on Project Goals and Objectives. Ms. MacKay responded by describing a hypothetical situation in which all or part of the problem no longer existed, once the "studies" were performed. Mr. Carnegie explained that any Problem Statement drafted at this time is not necessarily final and can be modified as project data is assessed.
• Mr. Fekete interjected that, although these issues are worth discussing, it is important to remember that the focus of the process should be transportation. He added that even if the Roundtable agrees that certain steps should be taken to improve land use policies, the EIS cannot be used to force municipalities to alter their procedures.
• Ms. Bauer expressed support for including a land use section in the Problem Statement. She observed that although Mr. Fekete is correct in stating that the EIS cannot force municipalities to alter their land use policies, it can serve a worthwhile function by indicating that NJDOT will not take a specific action unless municipalities take certain actions.
• Mr. Kanarek summarized the following critical issues that he recommends for inclusion in the Problem Statement: traffic signals on Route 1; increased travel times and traffic delays; and quality of life. He also noted the limitations on public transportation in the area, emphasizing that although local trips are not well served by public transit this area has more public transit than many similar communities around the country.
• Mr. Fekete recommended including infrastructure issues in the Problem Statement, particularly the condition of the Millstone River Bridge.
• Mr. Eland observed that a vast amount of traffic in the area – 40% as estimated by West Windsor’s traffic consultant – originates in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and that the "focus" of this traffic is Princeton Junction and its environs. Mr. Eland emphasized that the EIS must address this situation and consider its impacts on West Windsor residents.
• Ms. Bauer suggested that the Problem Statement include mention of a proposed new Delaware River crossing and the anticipated increase in tolls and congestion pricing. She expressed hope that these factors would encourage some Bucks County commuters to carpool. In response, Ms. Lewis noted that the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission’s study of this issue is just beginning and that the project is far from the EIS preparation stage. However, she suggested that this is a good time for interested citizens to become involved, since the project includes a number of open hearings. She added that one issue that will be discussed is the possibility of building a NJ Transit train station in Bucks County.
• Mayor Hsueh concurred that a great deal of traffic is entering the area from Bucks County and that most of it is destined for Princeton Junction. He observed that many of these commuters wish to use Amtrak trains, which do not stop at Hamilton Station. He expressed support for a NJ Transit train station in Bucks County.
• Mr. Fekete and Mr. Robins observed that many of the issues being discussed, including the topic of traffic from Bucks County, are also being considered by the Central Jersey Transportation Forum. In response to a question from Ms. Lynch, Mr. Robins agreed that perhaps the Forum and its deliberations should be mentioned in the Problem Statement.
• Ms. Lewis asked how the "truck ban" on other roads impacts Route 1 and how this issue should be discussed in the "Road-related Issues" paragraph of Version 2 of the Problem Statement. In response, Mr. Robins reported that, at a recent meeting, NJMTA indicated that Turnpike tolls are not of significant concern to truckers. This paragraph will therefore be modified in the next draft of the Problem Statement. Mr. Robins also noted that NJTMA staff did discuss the impacts of warehousing policy changes and the tremendous increase in waste hauling trucks on Route 1 traffic.
• In response to Mr. Robins’ comments, Ms. Preston recommended that the Problem Statement should discuss the possibility of increased Turnpike tolls and any resulting impacts on truckers’ decisions on whether to use the Turnpike or Route 1.
• Sandy Shapiro, West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives, suggested that the "Pedestrian and Bicycle Issues" paragraph be amended, since it does not accurately reflect current conditions. It is her view that pedestrians and cyclists do not presently face problems crossing Route 1 at Washington Road, since the crossing is at grade. However, she acknowledged that there could be a problem if an overpass is constructed.
• Ms. Bauer again raised the issue of I-95, although she expressed uncertainty, saying that it was "water under the bridge." However, Ms. Brake recommended that I-95 be mentioned in the Problem Statement, since the goals that it was expected to achieve were never realized. In her view, this has resulted in the implementation of individual actions that made sense as part of an overall "package" but that no longer make sense as isolated improvements.
• David Parris, Penns Neck resident, emphasized the need to move forward and adopt a Problem Statement. He expressed support for Version 2, the draft prepared by the Project Team. Ms. Preston stated that she agrees with Mr. Parris that Version 2 of the Problem Statement is acceptable (or, in consensus terms, that she could "live with" the document).

Several persons summarized categories of issues that should be added to the Problem Statement.

• Ms. Hersh suggested Infrastructure; Transit-related; Economic/Employment; Environmental; and Land Use.
• Ms. Lynch suggested Open Space/Air Quality/Water Quality.
• Ms. Killmer recommended including greenhouse gases, watershed management and CMAQ issues.
• Mr. Fekete agreed that "green things" should be included and that there should be room in the Problem Statement for innovation. He added that, in his view, the Sierra Club should be invited to participate in the Central Jersey Transportation Forum.

At the conclusion of this discussion, it was agreed that the following five sections will be added to the Problem Statement: Land Use; Economics; Environmental; Infrastructure; and Traffic Demand Management.

Ms. Shapiro requested that notices of future meetings be posted on the project website or emailed to all attendees of the previous meeting, rather than just to Roundtable members. Mr. Carnegie replied that the project website will probably be operational in approximately two weeks. He added that it is not practical to have a huge email notification list. Following an extended discussion of this issue, Ms. MacKay suggested that the websites of constituent Roundtable organizations could be used to post email notifications until the project website is operational.

Mr. Jaffe reported that a number of Roundtable members have indicated that it will be difficult for them to attend one or both meetings previously scheduled for August (August 16^th and 28^th). The project team therefore recommended that the August 16^th meeting be cancelled. Although Ms. Preston expressed reservations about the wisdom of a meeting on August 28^th, since it is shortly before Labor Day, and Ms. Killmer suggested that both meetings be cancelled, Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Fekete emphasized the importance of keeping the EIS process moving. It was decided to cancel the August 16^th meeting but to hold the August 28^th meeting as planned. It was also decided to hold all future meetings at the West Windsor Senior Center.

The next Roundtable meeting will be held on:

The dates of the September and October meetings will be announced on August 28^th.

Mr. Carnegie requested that Roundtable members email suggestions concerning the content of the five new sections of the Problem Statement, along with comments on the previous draft (Version 2), to him at

carnegie@rci.rutgers.edu no later than August 13^th.

In response to requests, Mr. Jaffe promised that a list of Roundtable members and their contact numbers will be assembled and distributed as soon as possible.