20 Mar 16 Please post in response to Jerry's comments re Canal Pointe Road Diet... Thank you!

[Pete Weale]

Hi, Jerry et al: 

A few points?

(1). I respectfully disagree with your assessment(s). You might disclose to readers what your PROFESSIONAL role is in all of this.

(2). We need roadways dedicated to... roadways. There are countless other venues for cyclists to ride. We have bikeways to nowhere. How have you been championing a connection between the high schools as an extension of the Trolley Line Trail via the PSE&G utility easement? 

(3). Do taxpayers know what they spent on the construction, continued maintenance & insurance, and 50-year tax abatements to PSE&G... yet the Trolley Line Trail STOPS on Village Road instead of extending down to Conover Fields and Mercer County Park crew/rowing facilities?

(4). Your group has been beyond silent on the Cranbury Road sidewalks and way beyond silent regarding the Washington Road sidewalks and bikeway lane along Washington Road from Princeton University to the PJ Train Station.
We proposed sidewalks along Cranbury Road in 1984... and the Mayor PROMISED action on the sidewalks as one of the many faux promises of his re-election run 3 years ago.

(5). Alexander Road and Harrison Street both/each have flashing road crossing signals which serve both cyclists and pedestrians. Despite a recent pedestrian/auto accident on Washington Road, there remains NO SIGNAL for safe pedestrian/ cyclist crossing. I tire of the endless mantra that nothing can be done because... it is a county-owned highway. Retroactive pay increases for County Freeholders were crafted by the re-elected County Executive.

(6). What financial contributions and resident input have been forthcoming to the Road Diet from Princeton Theological Seminary... would these riders not be better served riding along the... D&R Canal towpath?

(7). NRG Employees would probably WALK across the street and not bike on Canal Pte Blvd. These same employees will BIKE to Whole Foods or Wegmans to do grocery shopping during their lunch hours? I don't embrace that concept.

(8). Pedestrian- and User-activated crosswalk signals would better benefit pedestrians from Canal Pointe frequenting Marketfair Mall. As Mr. Halloran states, if speed is an issue, WWPD can patrol that area.

(9). Canal Pointe Blvd is a surface nightmare - replete with the infamous tree plantings which uplift sidewalks. I don't see the Bike & Pedestrian people generating support with the Township Landscape Architect for this sustained cost. There ARE tree species which do NOT have invasive tree roots but the Twp is silent on this.

(10). Roadways are meant for CARS, trucks, & motorized vehicles. The introduction of pedestrians and cyclists into the roadway is NOT a good fit. Installation of roadway islands are useful at some intersections but not the full length of Canal Point Blvd. (I had suggested sidewalks to NJDOT many years ago on US Route 1 to accommodate the pedestrians walking from Meadow Road apartments to their places of employment in Nassau Park. NJDOT finally did effect that safety improvement!

(11). Perhaps you would explore opening Canal Point Blvd into Nassau Park for local users. I have not heard about revisiting that effort to keep vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists segregated from one another for the purpose of mutual safety.

As always, I invite corrections of any misunderstandings.

Posted: 03/20/2016 12:49 pm by Pete W

Pete Weale

bric...@aol.com

[Sandra Shapiro]

Pete,

I suggest that you visit the WWBPA website to learn about the organization's longterm commitment to both a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly community. Review the News Archives for specifics. We’ve promoted sidewalks and bikeways, both on- and off-road where appropriate and feasible. Since our inception we’ve promoted pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety. With appropriate marking and width, bicycles can and do work on our roads.

Here are some examples of what the WWBPA has done:

Promoting pedestrian safety in crosswalks, 9/10/2010: http://wwbpa.org/2010/09/demonstrating-pedestrian-safety/

Fall 2010 Newsletter: http://wwbpa.org/fall-2010-newsletter/

In 2012, The Federal Highway Administration issued a document citing New Jersey as a state in which pedestrian safety should be a top priority. One of the recommendations is to use road diets to enhance safety: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/

In regard to a sidewalk on Cranbury Road, the WWBPA was very active, conducted a walk with local and county officials,

and promoted active involvement in the process:

7/31/2013: http://wwbpa.org/2013/07/update-sidewalks-on-cranbury-rd/

6/25/2013: http://wwbpa.org/2013/06/a-safer-cranbury-rd/

The WWBPA was founded in 2006. While “you” may have been advocating for sidewalks in 1984, the WWBPA took a proactive approach as early as 2007, advocating for changes to Cranbury Road:

http://wwbpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Grovers_Mill_Walk.pdf

The thought that there are “countless other venues for cyclists to ride” is a fallacy. With more people wanting to cycle to work, school, or for recreation, there is a need to have safe ways to get to and from those off-road options. Not everyone lives or works along the D&R Canal towpath or along the Trolley Line Trail.

10/10/2011: Who pays for roads:

http://wwbpa.org/2011/10/who-pays-for-our-roads/

The FHWA agrees that roads are for all, including bicycles, and are eligible for federal funding. It addresses common misconceptions at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/misconceptions.cfm. One of those misconceptions follows:

2. Federal transportation funds cannot be used to enhance the local roadway network.

This is false. The FHWA guidelines allow NHS capacity and safety needs to be addressed through a mix of on-system and parallel system network streets. portion of the local network is part of the Federal-aid highway system. All other roads that have a functional classification higher than local road or rural minor collector are eligible for Federal-aid funding through STP. Projects on local roads and rural minor collectors may be eligible in some cases. Furthermore, STP, TAP, and HSIP funds may be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects along any public road or trail, without any location restriction.

It is clear that you are mistaken about roadways being just for motorized vehicles.

Thank you for your attention and concern.

Sandy Shapiro

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "West Windsor Community Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to WWCommunityDiscu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to WWCommunit...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/WWCommunityDiscussion.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Alison Miller]

Sandy,

That was very well said!  

It is unfortunate that the discussion about the Canal Pointe Boulevard road design has been centering on bike lanes, when the paramount reason for the new design is safety for motorists!  Left turn lanes will avoid side swipes and rear enders for people wanting to turn left off Canal Pointe Boulevard, and having fewer lanes of traffic to cross will make it safer for people wanting to turn left onto Canal Pointe Boulevard.  The horrible condition of the road today means that most people use only the middle lanes anyway, so one travel lane with left turn lanes will work just fine.

Alison  

---

From: Sandra Shapiro <ssha...@mac.com>
To: WWCommunit...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: 20 Mar 16 Please post in response to Jerry's comments re Canal Pointe Road Diet... Thank you!

[Pattie Janus Reslan]

I want to thank Sandy and let her know I agree with her interesting and insightful points.

Thank you,

 

Pattie Janus Reslan

This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained herein is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if an attachment is made in error, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the above person by telephone immediately by return e-mail and delete/trash the original message from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Larry McGill]

Likewise.

 

Larry McGill

[Pete Weale]

Hi, All -

Thank you, Sandy, Alison, et al for providing your dialogue and insights!

(1).  I submit as Exhibit 1 the traffic-calming, bicycle-enhancing measures installed in the middle of Edinburg Road.. and New Village Road.  These designs were installed to mitigate the hazards referenced, primarily as a safe haven for cross-over turns.  You will note the deterioration occurring in the asphalt between those islands and the endless maintenance (snow-plowing, mowing, with trees planted, removed when dead, and then replanted with suffocating mounding which kills the trees). Rinse and repeat.

(2).  Re: Canal Pte Blvd,  I am very aware of the right hand lane deterioration to the point of the 4-lane roadway shrinking to a barely functional 2-lane road. This has been apparent for many years. When the sidewalk designs were presented in the early 1980's,  the debate was to have either elevated and meandering sidewalks or straight, plain vanilla, minimal grade sidewalks.  The fancier sidewalks were embraced and that is what was installed.  There is no reference in the discussions here on how much the taxpayers pay annually to re-do sidewalks throughout the township from the tree roots.

(3).  The purpose of registering my comments here is I doubt there will be ANY change in the "public" discussion tomorrow (Monday) night after the Council meeting.  I believe the decision is a fait accompli. 

(4).  I'll throw into the discussion that with all the personpower associated with the WWPBA,  no one's interest was ever piqued over several years (while Bob Hary was Twp Administrator) when I watched Dr. John Nash attempt to cross the roadway in front of his house.  Years ago, on my way to a Council meeting, it was astonishing to see Dr. Nash and his neighbors stranded due to traffic.  But the Engineering Department rolled out a book of engineering specs on why a crosswalk could NOT be installed in the shadows of the $22-24 million Alexander Road rotary.  Of course it is academic at this point. If the arguments for denying the Nash neighborhood sidewalk (sight-lines),  then the double crosswalk at Scott Avenue and Wallace Road could NOT be constructed, a mere 150 yards near on a blind corner.

(5).  I believe I was present during that mayoral walk along Cranbury Road.  And here we are almost 3 years later in which the public is inundated with excuses. I have listened to them all - it is the County's fault; it is the residents' fault for not responding... but that engineering STUDY went ahead unimpeded at a cost of ???? without first obtaining consensus.  We used to call that putting the cart before the horse.

(6).  I did not mean to imply that cyclists and vehicles could not co-exist.  Princeton is full of signs 'share the road.'  But there are areas in parks for cycling and I have yet to see myriad cyclists descending on the PJ train station as is found in Portland, OR. If the sidewalks along Canal Pointe are NOT being used,  perhaps the sharing might be an interim solutions between pedestrians and cyclists?  I have no dog in this hunt but I believe there are cost-effect alternatives.  

(7).  You might note during FY 2014 and 2015 (including the last Council meeting in December),  I expressed concern about creating a sense of urgency to get the sidewalks underway.  And now, at least a couple years after the 2013 promises, engineering study, and plethora of delays,  we are at the front door of more delays.  There were allegedly, for the first phase of Cranbury Road sidewalks, SIX (6) property owners,:  2 said 'yes', 2 said 'no' and 2 had not responded.

(8). In summary,  the township has been advised of the hazards by many residents and users of Cranbury Neck Road. For the Township and County to not have mitigated the hazard,  any injuries lie at the door of the Township taxpayers, of which we are all one.  We have the roadway construction equipment and manpower to provide at least a phase 1 of this project but instead,  all I see and hear are excuses.   And NO ONE has championed the simple task of installing another segment of sidewalk along Washington Road where pedestrians are exposed to drivers exceeding 50 mph.  Penns Neck is foreign territory for many.

(9). As middle and high schoolers, both my son and daughter wanted to ride their bicycles to CMS /  HS-North but that simply has not been a priority to provide a comprehensive network for too many years.  Heck,  we don't even have a sustained sidewalks network in the main part of Princeton Junction's commercial/downtown district. I am sure many of us recall when Lolly Dey used to cross Princeton-Hightstown Road between her residence and the Acme Plaza. I always feared for her personal safety but it didn't seem to bother others. Time marches on.

Thanks again for everyone's comments.  Over and out.

Pete

[Jerry Foster]

Thanks Pete,

Great points - my professional role as a Transportation Safety Educator for Greater Mercer TMA, a private 501(c)3 "dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and improving mobility in and around Mercer and Ocean County. Established in 1984, our association consists of large and small employers, local governments, authorities and state agencies who share a commitment to providing transportation choices that are good for commuters, good for business and good for the environment. " according to http://gmtma.org

My understanding is that you are a retired employee of Exxon, pls let me know if that's mistaken. If asking the question was to imply that I have a vested interest in more biking and walking facilities, the answer is no, just a personal passion as a resident of West Windsor. I don't make any more or less money whether or not anything gets built, but the discussion of business models is a good one, I'd like to come back to it in the future.

So let's talk safety - the proposed road diet will improve safety for everyone, but mostly for motorists since there are mostly motorists on Canal Pte Blvd, see: http://www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/ch2.cfm#s211

But enough about work ;-) - adding biking and walking capability to auto-dependent locations like WW is important to reduce property taxes, improve health and reduce air pollution.

The opportunity is to move 40% of all trips (those 2 miles or less) to active transportation. If NJ was as successful as the best in the world with similar population densities, e.g. Holland or Denmark, we'd achieve 25% of trips by walking or biking. This can only be achieved with the engineering changes like road diets that make it safe and comfortable for the average person (not the enthusiastic activist like me).

We need everyone's help to make it happen - reduce property taxes (less space dedicated to roads paid for by our property taxes), improve health (walking up to a half mile or biking up to 2 miles) and reduce air pollution (from car exhaust, duh). Hope to see you tonight!

Jerry Foster

[hersh....@gmail.com]

This is a great spirited debate by a group of residents that clearly care about our community.   At some point in time, Democracy used to work this way. While all things are not agreed, we push forward toward a common goal.   Thank you Pete, Jerry, Sandy and Allison for continuing the push for common good.

I'm enjoying the very healthy debate and look forward to a more walkable and bike-able community.

The question I have on Canal Point, is if the long term development plans of the community allow for the same levels of traffic that we have today.  I hope so, but if it is in contradiction, we should consider this in our decision making process.  

Thanks everyone!

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

[Virginia Manzari]

I am a long-time supporter of safe transportation in our community.  But I encourage everyone to take a look at the Road Diet study online before forming an opinion on whether or not to support this change.  I have studied the report, walked and driven through the area afterwards, and spoken with a large number of residents in the Canal Pointe development.  

There are definitely safety issues on Canal Pointe Blvd, but I do not believe that the ‘road diet’ is the solution.  This plan proposes to reduce Canal Pointe Blvd (CPB) to one lane each way with a turning lane in the middle at intersections, and to add bike lanes.  I see two problems with that.  First, the streets that feed into CPB will get backed up with traffic, which will cause longer wait times and more difficulty merging into traffic.  With drivers at rush hour taking chances to merge onto CPB, you have an increased potential  for accidents.  Second, in my experience with turning lanes that come and go, drivers who get impatient behind slower drivers tend to use turning lanes as passing lanes, which could cause a serious accident if a pedestrian or biker is in the intersection at the time.  So I see this proposal as exchanging one safety concern for potentially worse safety concerns.  

Also, while walking door-to-door last summer and fall, I made sure to ask residents of Canal Pointe what they thought would improve the road.  Not a single person I spoke with over there thought the Road Diet was necessary or desirable.  Without fail, they all said that PAVING the road would make it safer.  Instead, lowering the speed limit or having the police patrol to maintain the current speed limit was mentioned.  

There is a very small number of bikers who travel on this road, and at the same time the number of cars on this road is expected to increase.  Princeton Seminary has approval to build more housing and will do so.  Expansion is planned in the business section.  The number of cars will increase and the number of school buses will increase as well, since the number of additional school children is expected to be 100-225 kids.  Even the report that was written in 2008 and updated in 2013 stated that if any changes were to be made that they should be made immediately, “before traffic growth and corporate expansion takes place.”  Since we are 3 years passed that timeline, I don’t see any reason to pursue this change, which will only have to be reversed as traffic continues to increase.    

V.

[Jerry Foster]

It used to be that traffic only increased, but the last decade was different. Toward the end of last year, absolute miles driven finally supassed the previous record in 2007. Per capita miles driven, drivers licenses, vehicle sales per capita, etc. are all down compared to the past, student loan debt is up.

Who can tell what happens in the future? Recently the NJ Governor gave a speech about people moving out of NJ - attached is the 2010-15 data from the US Census, which show 269K moving out of NJ, and 270K moving in from other countries. If the presidential candidate that the NJ Governor supports is successful, we can reasonably expect the number moving in from other countries to go down, leaving NJ with a net loss. Hard to see much traffic growth in that scenario.

Jerry Foster

[Sandra Shapiro]

Thank you Jerry and Virginia, for your comments.

Comments by residents who live near the road and received by the Engineering Division were heavily weighted in favor of the road diet (72%). Paving the road may lead to more speeding. Road diets should offer more safety to autos, pedestrians, and bikes:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10053/index.cfm

There may not be many bicyclists on Canal PoInte Boulevard now because it is unsafe to ride there without designated bike lanes or shoulders. Princeton Theological Seminary students have limited resources and may find bicycling a more economical way to travel, especially for short distances.

Sandy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "West Windsor Community Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to WWCommunityDiscu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to WWCommunit...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/WWCommunityDiscussion.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<NJ Migration by Age.jpg>

[Virginia Manzari]

Well I don't think you can make predictions based on those assumptions, Jerry.  What we can count on is that no matter what is happening in other parts of NJ, WW's population has grown by leaps and bounds.  In fact, WW is the second fastest growing township in Mercer County.   Seems we are the place to be.  We have excellent schools and proximity to the train station, along with a lot of green space that people appreciate.  Unless any of those things changes dramatically, if someone builds housing, people will move in with their families.  And they'll be driving cars.  

As far as people responding to the township survey, 23 people who live along Canal Pointe were in support, 7 were opposed, and 2 were unclear in their response.  Out of the thousands of residents in that development, I wouldn't say that information is particularly useful because that number of responses is not statistically significant.  Only 43 responses in total were gathered - none from business owners and only 4 from other residents of WW.  I often used market research in my professional career, and this survey would not have been a valid piece of data.  

V. 

[Sandra Shapiro]

I agree that the number of responses was very low, but so is the percentage of voters—generally lowest in the more local contests.

More people are working some days from home, keeping their cars off the roads. Giving people more options, like safe bike lanes or shorter commutes (businesses closer to affordable homes), might reduce the number of cars on the road. It’s worth trying.

Sandy

[Virginia Manzari]

Voter turnout is quite low, but that doesn't make the results of the survey valid.  I pay very close attention to these types of things, and I didn't know about the survey until the results were published.  I would hazard a guess that most people didn't know about it.  And again, I didn't find a single person as I walked around Canal Pointe who was in favor of the suggested change.  Most of them begged just for the road to be paved so that it is safer to drive on.  

So if the road diet has negative consequences, such as longer wait times, more congestion, and different kinds of accidents, is it really worth trying?   Considering that it costs MONEY to pave and re-stripe, why pay to do it TWICE?  Once to do the road diet, and again to change it back.  Makes no sense IMO.  

Also, where exactly do we think these bikers are going to come from?  People who live in Canal Pointe aren't going to ride their bikes to Whole Foods for groceries (and even if they did they'd be crossing CPB, not riding along it.)  People aren't going to be riding toward the Alexander Road Bridge - to where?  It's a bike lane to nowhere.  It just doesn't make sense. 

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, Sandy wrote:

I agree that the number of responses was very low, but so is the percentage of voters—generally lowest in the more local contests.

More people are working some days from home, keeping their cars off the roads. Giving people more options, like safe bike lanes or shorter commutes (businesses closer to affordable homes), might reduce the number of cars on the road. It’s worth trying.

Sandy

On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Virginia Manzari <vama...@comcast.net> wrote:

Well I don't think you can make predictions based on those assumptions, Jerry.  What we can count on is that no matter what is happening in other parts of NJ, WW's population has grown by leaps and bounds.  In fact, WW is the second fastest growing township in Mercer County.   Seems we are the place to be.  We have excellent schools and proximity to the train station, along with a lot of green space that people appreciate.  Unless any of those things changes dramatically, if someone builds housing, people will move in with their families.  And they'll be driving cars.  

As far as people responding to the township survey, 23 people who live along Canal Pointe were in support, 7 were opposed, and 2 were unclear in their response.  Out of the thousands of residents in that development, I wouldn't say that information is particularly useful because that number of responses is not statistically significant.  Only 43 responses in total were gathered - none from business owners and only 4 from other residents of WW.  I often used market research in my professional career, and this survey would not have been a valid piece of data.  

V. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "West Windsor Community Discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to WWCommunityDiscussion+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Pete Weale]

Hi, Jerry et al: 

Good seeing you and a boatload of residents at last night's WW Council meeting. I departed prior to the road diet discussion.

It seemed strange to see Dr. Hsueh, PhD, P.E.,  as Director of Public Safety, duck out of the discussions for a program he proposed and supported.

(After how many years have we sought closure to and an accounting of the Grover Homestead razing? Instead, the mayor has the Twp attorney craft responses at taxpayer expense?)

What was the OUTCOME of last night's discussions?

Conversations and contributions are far more constructive when one adds his/her name to the discussion. Thank you!

P.S.: I hope the WWBPA will consider adding the short segment along Washington Road between Wallingford Drive and Pierson Ave to its list of pedestrian sidewalks. I submitted the pictures and a letter to Council and the mayor three (3) years ago. Too I believe our own WW Department of Public Works has the equipment and manpower to do the site preparation for Washington Road AND Cranbury Road. Paying our WWDPW staff to do this is every bit as important as retrieving leaves, brush, and twigs. We have some great guys in Public Works!

Pete W

-----Original Message-----
From: Virginia Manzari <vama...@comcast.net>
To: West Windsor Community Discussion <WWCommunit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 21, 2016 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: 20 Mar 16 Please post in response to Jerry's comments re Canal Pointe Road Diet... Thank you!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to WWCommunityDiscu...@googlegroups.com.

[Alison Miller]

I am in favor of the Washington Road sidewalk between Wallingford and Pierson.  I hope we can get it on the priority list.  

Last night 12 people spoke out clearly for the road diet, 5 people spoke clearly against it, one person was deliberately neutral, one person seemed in favor, one person seemed against, and one person who had spoken in favor at a previous meeting spoke about other safety measures. 

et al

---

From: 'Pete Weale' via West Windsor Community Discussion <WWCommunit...@googlegroups.com>
To: WWCommunit...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:39 PM
Subject: 22 March 2016 Results - Canal Pointe Road Diet? Thank you!

[John Church]

Unfortunately the only businessperson who came (that I know of) was Donna Lucarelli of KellerWilliams realty in MarketFair. She was opposed to the road diet as she believes it would negatively affect her office traffic.   I think she’s right. 

 

Although this is admittedly a very small sample, I believe that most business concerns in the area would be against the diet.

 

As I said at the meeting, Canal Pointe Boulevard (for better or worse) is an important safety valve for Route 1 and the best possible through access could be vital.   If there were a serious accident or other emergency on Route 1 or businesses on the west side, and the only way fire apparatus could get there was via Canal Pointe, the blockade would very likely be much worse with the diet than without it.  Obviously we cannot put a dedicated emergency lane in the middle of the road as they do in NYC.

 

The solution would be to make the right-of-way considerably wider than it presently is, in which case bike lanes would be feasible.  But aside from the property acquisition issues, this would require very expensively relocating all the storm sewers. 

 

Nobody thought far enough ahead, just as with Cranbury Road and 571.  I really fear for the future of the latter.  It’s already a death trap, as we so well know. 

 

John

 

 

---

From: wwcommunit...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wwcommunit...@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:49 PM
To: WWCommunit...@googlegroups.com

[Jerry Foster]

Thanks to everyone who came out to express your views on the road diet, I very much appreciate and enjoy the respectful public participation that is a part of living here.

Pete, great suggestion re sidewalks on 571 in Penns Neck. As I mentioned to the Freeholders when we went to talk about Cranbury Rd, the county should review their policy against installing sidewalks on county roads in light of the county's Complete Streets policy.

Jerry