NOSE TO NOSE

Route 92
BUILD IT | DON'T BUILD IT

Build it
The only problem is that the highway doesn't go far enough

By Richard Willever
Princeton Packet Editor
Wednesday, April 14, 1999

    Two decades ago, they said if I supported construction of I-95 north through Hopewell and Montgomery the entire area would boom uncontrollably, traffic would be a mess all over and thousands of pristine acres would be destroyed. Turns out they were right. I supported constructing I-95's "missing link"; the result of the debate is what you see around you today. Funny thing, though, is that I lost the argument. I-95 never was completed.
    The delusion then as now was that just saying no to growth was a realistic option. Killing the interstate did not stop development. Using the money designated for I-95 to improve local roads significantly intensified the firestorm of growth up and down Route 1. Talk about secondary impacts on every neighborhood, school, road and blade of grass in the region, nothing compares to what "improving" Route 1 has wrought.
    Route 1 turned into a nightmare of commercial development and curb cuts. Today we hear that Route 92 should not be built, not because better flow east and west is not needed, but because it will attract development and clog local roads. The alternative is to "improve" those local roads. Which do you think is more likely to leave you in smog-laden gridlock? Which will provide more opportunities for construction? Which, ultimately, will cause more damage to the environment?
    A limited access highway moves vehicles through your town quickly, and creates opportunities for planned growth largely at or near certain interchanges. Zoning can follow its logic. "Improved" local roads create a sprawl of opportunity at every point.
    The biggest problem with the current plans for Route 92 is that they don't go far enough. Common sense would extend it to Route 206.
What's your opinion? Post Forums message

Don't build it
Traffic relief is needed; a Turnpike spur is not

By Randy Bergmann
Packet OnLine Editor

    The issue here is not whether traffic relief is needed. It's whether the scale and cost are warranted, given the environmental damage, and whether the new highway will deliver on what its booster club, made up largely of businesses, developers and labor unions, has promised.
   The cost cannot be justified and Route 92 will worsen, rather than improve, traffic by inducing more of it -- particularly trucks looking for a better route from New England and New York to the Philadelphia area. Yes, traffic does get bottlenecked in Plainsboro and in areas adjacent to Forrestal Center. But a new 6.7-mile Turnpike extension, which its proponents envision one day connecting to Route 27 in Kingston and Route 206 in Montgomery, is overkill. Even if it succeeds in improving traffic flow through Plainsboro -- an assumption I don't buy -- it will worsen the backups on Route 1 in Plainsboro and West Windsor.
   This project has been driven from the outset by Princeton University -- owner of Forrestal Center -- Matrix Development Corp. and a handful of other landowners and developers with interests at the two ends of the proposed highway. In many ways, that's what this is all about -- a publicly financed means of moving traffic in and out of Forrestal Center and the warehouse/commercial zone near Exit 8A. The Turnpike didn't get involved in this venture to solve traffic problems in Plainsboro; it wants Route 92 because it will generate additional volume and revenue.
   A scaled-down version of Route 92 has been proposed that would use existing roadways, minimize the environmental impact and cost a fraction of the proposed Turnpike extension, estimated two years ago at $350 million but likely to reach half a billion dollars or more should it ever get built. The alternative would accommodate existing traffic without encouraging new development.
   Environmentalists and public interests groups aren't the only ones who have questioned the wisdom of building this road. The former executive director of the N.J. Turnpike Authority, assessing the need for it, called it "marginal." In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency agreed, saying the need for the project had not been demonstrated. Four months later, a state Department of Environmental Protection consultant arrived at the same conclusion, emphasizing that the need for a major connector road had not been established by the traffic data and that the construction of Route 92 would not substantially ease traffic congestion on local roads. In countering that conclusion, the Turnpike cited figures showing that Route 92 would result in an anticipated 12 percent reduction in traffic at key intersections in Plainsboro and South Brunswick. Do we need to pave over 6.7 miles of farmland for a 12 percent decrease in traffic caused by a handful of employers? It would be absolute folly to do so.
What's your opinion? Post forums message