Thursday, June 11, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Mobility
Present:
The Council of Princeton Future
Katherine Benesch
Marvin Bressler
Robert Geddes, Chair
Susan Hockaday
Katherine Kish
Sheldon Sturges, Managing Director
Borough of Princeton
Ralph Widner, Traffic & Transportation Committee
Jim Begin, Traffic & Transportation Committee
Robert Bruschi, Administrator
Barbara Trelstad, Member of Council
Kevin Wilkes, Member of Council
Regional Planning Board of Princeton
Marvin Reed, Chair, Master Plan Subcommittee
Westminister Choir College
Anne Sears, Director, External Affairs
Princeton Senior Resource Center
Susan Hoskins, Executive Director
Princeton University
Kristin Appelget, Director of Community & Regional Affairs
Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association
Sandy Brillhart, Executive Director
Princeton Community Housing
Sandra Persichetti, Executive Director
Citizens
Chip Crider
B Lauf
Louis Slee
ABSTRACT
• The Boro Administrator presented the case for forming a Transportation Improvement District in Princeton [aka PIP]. In exchange for grants of appropriate density, developers would be able to pay a fee into a PIP fund as they made plans to expand their properties in the Downtown. The height limits of the existing zoning regulations would be respected. The monies would be collected by the municipality to create better transportation and parking options. A new garage at Park Place and/or Merwick were suggested. Extending the FreeB hours and routes might be another use of the funds. The idea was very well-received.
• The Executive Director of the Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association made a plea for coordinated scheduling and signage between the University’s Tiger Transit, NJ Transit and the FreeB with a special focus on increasing the frequency of the 605.
• A volunteer citizen with a PhD in engineering presented the case for Personal Rapid Transit [PRT] in Princeton. The cost per ride is much lower. It goes where you want when you want.
Sheldon: He welcomed all to the Community Room and thanked them for coming. He said that we would hear 3 brief presentations, each followed by Q & A.
The first from Bob Bruschi on Transportation Improvement Districts.
The second from Sandy Brillhart on ‘What might happen here…If?’. And,
the third from Chip Crider on Personal Rapid Transit in Princeton.
Bob Bruschi: The Boro is constantly reiterating that nearly 50 % of our little city is tax exempt. This provides a limited opportunity to grow our tax base. There may be a way to take some control over our own destiny. One solution might be to provide and encourage strategic, well-balanced, well-designed growth in the Boro, specifically in the Downtown’s Central Business District and along Nassau Street. This would include some appropriate mix of commercial office, retail and residential. The reason this hasn’t happened in a more normal and orderly way is because of the Borough’s zoning requirements, especially as they relate to parking.
We have had a moratorium on growth in the downtown because there has been no way to satisfy the parking requirements.
If we simply remove the requirement, what will we do when we have many, many more cars? The new Alberts building on Nassau East has placed all of the parking underneath the building. This is not good for the street life of the town. Elsewhere, such as at the A&B site, this is simply not practical. The majority of property owners can’t invest. Parking is the single hurdle to overcome. For example, if you look at the Woolworth’s Building at 122 Nassau St. If it were to be torn down and rebuilt with ground floor retail, a floor of office and 3 floors of residential, it would make sense. There would be a requirement for parking for 21-31 cars. The end result is no projects. No increase in ratables. Higher taxes for our citizens. There may be those who this is ok, but I would say this needs to be fixed.
We do have a viable option: We can develop a P.I.P. - A Parking Improvement Program, modeled after West Windsor’s TID [Transportation Improvement District].
Simply put, in the mid 1980’s, West Windsor established a legal mechanism. All new development contribute to it. The fund is used to build infrastructure to deal with the impacts created by the new development. They have used these funds to build sewers and roads. They have collected over $9,000,000 in TID funds and have earned over $900,000 in interest.
Princeton’s PIP would be something along the lines of: new buildings would meet their parking demand by allowing the Boro to partner with them as a provider of parking. A developer would:
• Pay into a fund that would allow the property to meet its parking requirement.
• A formula would be devised so that the payment would pay for a portion of a
parking structure and its ongoing operation
• Any change of use that requires an increase in parking would also require
payment into the fund.
• The actual formula will be critical to the financial feasibility of this from both the Boro’s and the Developer’s side. The Boro’s % = ‘x’. And the developer’s is ‘y’. At Woolworth’s it might be $10,000/space? In the long term, most developers would pay that in a heartbeat. We need to have a plan.
• When devising the formula, there should be a component that goes towards the transit system of the Boro. The rationale for this is that every business and residence produces traffic impacts as well as increased parking demands.
• To offset some potential traffic impact, a portion of the fee would go towards operating the FreeB. It would be great to enact a similar fee in the Township so that future transit can be integrated into one larger service.
We’d look at a program where the Boro would undergo construction. There is no way to meet the parking requirements going on down Nassau Street without construction of a garage. We’re looking at 100’s of spaces. All new ratables. Historic preservation and existing zoning remain unchanged. We are looking at the publicly-owned Park Place Parking Yard. And/or, perhaps the Merwick/Y site. We could partner with other that need to build structures.
The citizens need the tax relief. We want to shift the burden from the residents to the commercial developer.
Katherine Kish said “This would be a multi-story structure?”
Katherine Benesch asked: “All builders would contribute to one structure?”
Bob Bruschi replied “Yes, but people could live wherever they want.” This would not be negotiable. It’s by ordinance. The price of the garage[s] is ‘x’ and here is the developer’s obligation. There is a correlation between transportation needs and parking needs in and around Princeton.” We have 22,000 spaces in Princeton. I believe that we are in a great spot for planning purposes. When the economy’s sun peaks through, there will be people hoping to expand. The PIP gives us a way to be supported by law. It is a legally-defensible way to provide parking.
So, now what?
a. We should initiate a formal review of the establishment of a PIP.
b. Once completed, then we should review he idea with developers and property owners.
c. Then, there needs to be a full vetting by Boro Council, in public.
Sheldon asked for each person in attendance to comment.
Marvin Reed: To some extent you are creating an in lieu payment system. This gives the Regional Planning Board some basis for an alternative means, other than on site parking. The building built on stilts on East Nassau is ugly. The RPB did do something like this when Labyrinth Books wanted to expand into its basement. There was a requirement to create 5 parking spaces for cars. The RPB granted a conditional approval based on a commitment by the University to provide parking with regular shuttle connections to the Jadwin Lot for Labyrinth employees.
Ralph Widner: At the end of the day, this idea needs to merge with a transit plan.
Bob Bruschi: It will certainly help. I agree with you.
Ralph: Let me ask. Will the Seminary, the Institute and Princeton University be able to participate? Do we need a transit district?
Bob B: Who pays is the biggest issue.
Kristin Appelget: This is an interesting concept.
Barbara Trelstad: This is a wonderful beginning. If we were to move in this direction, it would make sense.
Katherine Benesch: I agree. It gives property owners an alternative.
Marvin Reed: It isn’t a guarantee. The property owner has to come to the municipality and negotiate.
Katherine B.: It would increase their stake in the community.
Katherine Kish: I say “Bravo!” I like more options for parking and for transit.
Susan Hockaday: It is very creative. It provokes alternative thinking about space. Also, it makes it possible to do planning and provides the community the opportunity to persuade developers to do what it wants, where.
Jim Begin: A great idea. Do you have any projections on this?
Bob B.: No. But I have had a lot of discussions. I think that as we come out of the recession, we will see a lot of interest.
Sandy Brillhart: It is a great idea. I am happy to see us talking about a multi-modal system.
B Lauf: It is important to note that in order to make a pearl, there needs to be a grain of sand in the oyster. My blunt reaction is that this idea is entirely too car-centric. We have to work to break our dependence on the automobile.
Bob B: 1.1 in garage/1.5 at meter = 2.6-2.8 parking spaces needed. But it is the ratable increase we need. At the moment, the Boro and Palmer Square are the people controlling the parking supply.
B Lauf: Why in a dense area such as the location of the Woolworth building should there be any requirement for parking? In New York City, there is no such requirement.
Bob B: Transit will come if the local community wants it. The Boro has a relatively low vehicle per resident ratio. Employees do need a place to put their cars.
Chip Crider: Interesting. Do we really want a monolithic 5-story downtown? We have always done our planning in a de facto way so that everyone needs a variance. We don’t all share the Hillier vision for our downtown. I applaud your thinking outside of the box.
Susan Hockaday: This proposal pushes us more into a creative solution area. Speaking for older residents, they are very committed to being in this community. Anything that can make it so that we can work, live and shop in this community is good. Making the downtown more accessible is good.
Marvin Bressler: Motor pools. In the military, transportation was a collective enterprise. What is the relationship between this proposal and the Shopping Center?
Bob B: If we can get this going in the Township as well, then we could plan for jitneys and parking together.
Marvin Bressler: Would it be helpful if this were a single community?
Marvin Reed: Yes. We should not be thinking there is just one downtown. There are two. The same principles can be applied there. If the owner of the Shopping Center could be persuaded to make a contribution in lieu of providing more parking spaces, then we might have more residential housing there. It is an area that is zoned for senior housing. It has to be done carefully.
Kevin Wilkes: I want to speak about the word ‘monolithic’. We will never allow that to happen. I do think we can increase density. We need to remember the value of ‘memory objects’. When people talk about this development [Witherspoon House], they don’t talk about the building, they talk about the plaza. We need to be sure to make more parksand then create more housing around them. Let’s not forget the power of good design. The Boro is the Boro, even if there is consolidation. We need to provide a way to keep the property taxes from rising. We must increase the ratables. I am having arguments with Township residents about consolidation who say “Why should I carry the Boro’s tax burden?” So, we must make plans for the Boro.
Sandra Persichetti: It is a very creative idea. Is this similar to a parking authority?
Bob B.: No. I wouldn’t support that.
Sandra P.: Would people who are re-doing their property be guaranteed a parking space?
Bob B.: The concept is that there is a certain demand for parking in a community. But the hardest part is that once you have pooled parking we don’t know where they want to park It is the same as building a road.
Sandra P: $10,000 is cheap.
Bob B.: We can make it more.
Susan H: The fee is basically to offset the cost of building parking, right?
Ann Sears: $10,000 is the amount you’d need?
Bob B: Well, perhaps we’d raise $4,000,000 that way and then bond for the rest. The point is that, at the local level, we need to invest in our community. It’s hard. But it is the right thing to do.
Marvin Reed: One of the variables. Does it get built for public use, or for private, dedicated use? If it is for public use, then you can issue public bonds at an interest rate that is 2-3% lower. Palmer Sq, for instance, is private, and they control their own spaces. The other thing is the emphasis on the automobile. Are the number of spaces required realistic to begin with? We [RPB] recently completed the approvals for the Nassau Inn expansion. They did an elaborate study for the Chamber St Garage...Day use…shared use…night use. They ended up needing fewer spaces than we had thought.
Bob Geddes: I’d like to complement you, Bob. To have this come out of government is very good. This is a proposal that we wish to encourage strategic growth. It might be that we need to compare this to what would happen if we had no growth. It would be helpful to have the information as to what we really need. What do you really mean and how do we do it? Is this a shift away from purely residential to more commercial. What if the center has a greater mix of commercial? As Peter Drucker wrote: what if the office and residence are mixed? The modern concept of zoning might be outmoded. So, I would suggest, with respect, that parking and transportation needs to be required, just as the sewer is required. We need both. The only way we are going to get a Downtown District Plan is through transportation. This is fundamental: We don’t want to lose our Downtown. To summarize: My hunch is that this needs to be fundamentally an economic plan. The Downtown needs it. Te merchants need it. At the same time, we need a social plan. Princeton Future is beginning to work on The Princeton Index information on families and the social construction of the town. And, then, we need a physical plan that would grow out of the economic and the social. People will ask:
Why here?
Why now?
Why me?
Bob B.: What is driving this is the Boro’s lack of ability to drive its tax base.
Bob G.: One definition of a city is shared parking.
Marvin R: The requirement for parking is a major inhibitor.
B Lauf: What time frame are you talking about?
Bob G.: We need a 5-year and a 15-year plan.
Bob B. I think we need a 25-yr to 50-yr horizon.
Kristin: West Windsor has modified it TID several times. It needed to be done with data, within a financial framework.
Bob B: Let’s say the BRT [Bus Rapid Transit] gets built. What changes to our zoning will be needed?
Marvin R.: The garage becomes more valuable, if it can be convertible to other uses.
Bob Geddes: Planning should precede zoning.
Sheldon: Thank you Bob for your exciting presentation. I have asked Sandy Brillhart of the Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association to talk briefly about what makes the most sense for Princeton from her point of view. Sandy knows more about transportation in this area than anyone. Thank you very much for coming this morning. Sandy…
Sandra Brillhart: I will start by talking about my immediate needs. Getting here this morning from my home. I would have loved to take public transit. I pulled out all of the schedules. It is an overwhelming project. I looked at the 605 schedule from Market Fair. It is every 70 minutes. I looked at Tiger Transit which would take me to the Dinky. Then Iíd have to walk or transfer to the FreeB, but it wasnít running anymore. I worried that the connection might not be there. So I drove! The fact is: There is lots of transit. But it is piecemeal. I am not sure that you need more transit. We need to consolidate. To merge schedules. NJ Transit, Tiger Transit, FreeB. We need the equivalent of MapQuest so that you can plan your public transit trip.
Sheldon: That is what Cornell, Tompkins County and Ithaca have figured out [www.tcatbus.com = non-profit].
B Lauf: There has been an erosion of information. There used to be an informal listing at the Kiosk. When they re-did it, the listings have been removed. There should be some sort of discreet electronic display that is easily updatable.
Marvin Reed: Too bad. We could have made that a condition for their approval.
Kristin: We are having conversations. Kim Jackson of PU, Jim & Anton of the Boro’s Traffic & Transportation Committee and Chad Goerner. We have a big map on the table. We are looking to see where we overlay routes and where we can think cooperatively. PU now manages routes for the Seminary. We are hoping that the Hospital, IAS and the Choir College will join with us. Where are the unmet needs? Where are there wheels on the street already? Sandy is right. It is about mapping. PU’s buses now have GPS. So you can tell where you bus is. And we have new signage for Tiger Transit, NJ Transit & FreeB. Cynthia has been there to represent Xtown.
B Lauf: We should remember that 20-30,000 people used to come in and out of Princeton in one day to see the football games before the war.
Ralph Widner: You have to remember that there county boundaries.
Kristin: To keep it manageable, we are sticking to Princeton Boro & Township.
Bob G: Service districts are different. We ought to set the boundaries by the function.
Sandy: I can give you an update on the BRT and NJ Transitís plans. Last week there was a meeting of the Central New Jersey Transportation Forum. The short-term improvements in service:
• extend the 603, fr Trenton to Lawrenceville to Rt One to the Junction
• extend frequency on the 600 & 605
• new routes, to extend from Bucks County to Plainsboro, from Hamilton to Princeton, from New Brunswick to Plainsboro to Jct to Quakerbridge to Ewing. 10,000 new riders. 4.6k diverted from cars. All contingent on $25,000,000 in capital investment and $250,000,000 in increased operating expense. Included in this are some new well-defined transit stops.
Marvin R.: Please tell them, that the new buses have to be environmentally friendly. The 605 has to come every 20 minutes. Te 606 has be more reliable. We need to get from Downtown Princeton to the Hospital. We need to get out Elm Road to PDS and Stuart and the Belle Meade Train Station. Ordinary transit improvements. Not just the BRT!
Sheldon: Thank you, Sandy. We can now hear from Chip Crider. Chip is a resident. An engineer. He has been studying how Personal Rapid Transit ñ[PRT]- might fit in Princeton.
Chip Crider: When I discovered that the University wanted to move the Dinky and the Community didn’t. I decided , just for fun, to dig into the question further. Of course, the Dinky belongs to the Downtown. If it wasn’t for the walk-on traffic to the Dinky, the University could move it even further away. So, I started to think “How could we bring the Dinky into the Downtown?” But is a matter of the size of the cars and the turning radius required. It is outmoded. The weight per passenger is incredible. So I said: “Let’s go smaller. I found PRT.
Small vehicles that run independently on some sort of right-of-way on a guide-way. At each stop, there a few cars waiting. You get in and punch in your destination on a map. Where you want to go. If no one is riding, it doesn’t run. The reasons we can’t do this are not technical. They are political. They are building one at Heathrow’s new terminal. Princeton is not a progressive town. To move an idea forward is impossible. I have met with every appropriate person. PU has said they want to look at it. If the State does it, it will raise the price to a point where it no longer works. We need to do it ourselves. We will provide the last mile.
We start with the Obal’s Station. PU can build the initial run of the PRT under University Place to what I call the Joseph Henry Station beside Palmer House, behind Callaway. There would be a nice park there. A long linear square.
We would move Callaway across Nassau St to be next to the old Town Topics Building. We would be fixing the 206/Nassau/Mercer intersection at the same time. I further propose a one-way road to come across towards town from Boudinot. That would be the initial build. PU is urged to do this as part of its sustainability initiative. There might be some technically-minded alums who would be interested in funding it. We want to make Princeton exciting.
We want PU to plant the seed. The first step might cost around $100,000,000. NJ DOT did a feasibility study of PRT in 2007. Every bullet applies to Princeton. For Princeton University, the PRT has to go where people want to go. When they want to go. It has to be snappy. It has to be efficient. It has to be appealing. The State says there will be a 55% increase in cars by 2020. This is aimed at the second car. It has to be conceived as a whole system. No Jitneys will work because they operate in the roadway and nothing is going to be moving. Too much traffic. It is just like the water table. It needs to be independent. It needs to be 3 dimensional [ie go underground]. 95% of the proposed routes are on University or public lands. We have this window of opportunity. This is the time to plan. But we’re stuck.
Marvin Reed: Could it go all the way to the Junction? A one-seat ride?
Chip: Yes. You are right. The problems are political. Union rules and so forth. I am looking for the University to start this, though.
Marvin Reed: I just heard that the BRT roadway for the Dinky that has been proposed doesn’t have enough space. A new roadway would have to be constructed for the BRT. This enormously expensive. As to the PRT, if you can avoid a tunnel.
Chip: It is impossible to get a grade crossing. It has to go over & under. It really isn’t tunneling as much as it is excavation and drop-in.
B Lauf: In my view, there is too much detail. But a bulleted list shod be explored. It is your concept that is important. Students, seniors, administration.
Marvin Reed: What do we think the cost is to go underground? If the Boro gave up its metered parking on University Place, maybe it would fit on grade.
Kristin: We are proposing to build a new Dinky Station. We believe that it is important. It will be multi-modal: bike-bus-train-pedestrian…and we have to recognize that there are cars.
B Lauf: Planning is the key word.
Kristin: PU has done a lot of work on transportation. What do we have to do in the next 25 years…in the next 50 years? Where are the users?
Sandy: Are there any projections on ridership?
Chip: The cost per ride is 30-40¢ vs 60¢ for bus, if itís full.
Sheldon thanked all for coming.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15.
The Council of Princeton Future
Katherine Benesch
Marvin Bressler
Robert Geddes, Chair
Susan Hockaday
Katherine Kish
Sheldon Sturges, Managing Director
Borough of Princeton
Ralph Widner, Traffic & Transportation Committee
Jim Begin, Traffic & Transportation Committee
Robert Bruschi, Administrator
Barbara Trelstad, Member of Council
Kevin Wilkes, Member of Council
Regional Planning Board of Princeton
Marvin Reed, Chair, Master Plan Subcommittee
Westminister Choir College
Anne Sears, Director, External Affairs
Princeton Senior Resource Center
Susan Hoskins, Executive Director
Princeton University
Kristin Appelget, Director of Community & Regional Affairs
Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association
Sandy Brillhart, Executive Director
Princeton Community Housing
Sandra Persichetti, Executive Director
Citizens
Chip Crider
B Lauf
Louis Slee
ABSTRACT
• The Boro Administrator presented the case for forming a Transportation Improvement District in Princeton [aka PIP]. In exchange for grants of appropriate density, developers would be able to pay a fee into a PIP fund as they made plans to expand their properties in the Downtown. The height limits of the existing zoning regulations would be respected. The monies would be collected by the municipality to create better transportation and parking options. A new garage at Park Place and/or Merwick were suggested. Extending the FreeB hours and routes might be another use of the funds. The idea was very well-received.
• The Executive Director of the Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association made a plea for coordinated scheduling and signage between the University’s Tiger Transit, NJ Transit and the FreeB with a special focus on increasing the frequency of the 605.
• A volunteer citizen with a PhD in engineering presented the case for Personal Rapid Transit [PRT] in Princeton. The cost per ride is much lower. It goes where you want when you want.
Sheldon: He welcomed all to the Community Room and thanked them for coming. He said that we would hear 3 brief presentations, each followed by Q & A.
The first from Bob Bruschi on Transportation Improvement Districts.
The second from Sandy Brillhart on ‘What might happen here…If?’. And,
the third from Chip Crider on Personal Rapid Transit in Princeton.
Bob Bruschi: The Boro is constantly reiterating that nearly 50 % of our little city is tax exempt. This provides a limited opportunity to grow our tax base. There may be a way to take some control over our own destiny. One solution might be to provide and encourage strategic, well-balanced, well-designed growth in the Boro, specifically in the Downtown’s Central Business District and along Nassau Street. This would include some appropriate mix of commercial office, retail and residential. The reason this hasn’t happened in a more normal and orderly way is because of the Borough’s zoning requirements, especially as they relate to parking.
We have had a moratorium on growth in the downtown because there has been no way to satisfy the parking requirements.
If we simply remove the requirement, what will we do when we have many, many more cars? The new Alberts building on Nassau East has placed all of the parking underneath the building. This is not good for the street life of the town. Elsewhere, such as at the A&B site, this is simply not practical. The majority of property owners can’t invest. Parking is the single hurdle to overcome. For example, if you look at the Woolworth’s Building at 122 Nassau St. If it were to be torn down and rebuilt with ground floor retail, a floor of office and 3 floors of residential, it would make sense. There would be a requirement for parking for 21-31 cars. The end result is no projects. No increase in ratables. Higher taxes for our citizens. There may be those who this is ok, but I would say this needs to be fixed.
We do have a viable option: We can develop a P.I.P. - A Parking Improvement Program, modeled after West Windsor’s TID [Transportation Improvement District].
Simply put, in the mid 1980’s, West Windsor established a legal mechanism. All new development contribute to it. The fund is used to build infrastructure to deal with the impacts created by the new development. They have used these funds to build sewers and roads. They have collected over $9,000,000 in TID funds and have earned over $900,000 in interest.
Princeton’s PIP would be something along the lines of: new buildings would meet their parking demand by allowing the Boro to partner with them as a provider of parking. A developer would:
• Pay into a fund that would allow the property to meet its parking requirement.
• A formula would be devised so that the payment would pay for a portion of a
parking structure and its ongoing operation
• Any change of use that requires an increase in parking would also require
payment into the fund.
• The actual formula will be critical to the financial feasibility of this from both the Boro’s and the Developer’s side. The Boro’s % = ‘x’. And the developer’s is ‘y’. At Woolworth’s it might be $10,000/space? In the long term, most developers would pay that in a heartbeat. We need to have a plan.
• When devising the formula, there should be a component that goes towards the transit system of the Boro. The rationale for this is that every business and residence produces traffic impacts as well as increased parking demands.
• To offset some potential traffic impact, a portion of the fee would go towards operating the FreeB. It would be great to enact a similar fee in the Township so that future transit can be integrated into one larger service.
We’d look at a program where the Boro would undergo construction. There is no way to meet the parking requirements going on down Nassau Street without construction of a garage. We’re looking at 100’s of spaces. All new ratables. Historic preservation and existing zoning remain unchanged. We are looking at the publicly-owned Park Place Parking Yard. And/or, perhaps the Merwick/Y site. We could partner with other that need to build structures.
The citizens need the tax relief. We want to shift the burden from the residents to the commercial developer.
Katherine Kish said “This would be a multi-story structure?”
Katherine Benesch asked: “All builders would contribute to one structure?”
Bob Bruschi replied “Yes, but people could live wherever they want.” This would not be negotiable. It’s by ordinance. The price of the garage[s] is ‘x’ and here is the developer’s obligation. There is a correlation between transportation needs and parking needs in and around Princeton.” We have 22,000 spaces in Princeton. I believe that we are in a great spot for planning purposes. When the economy’s sun peaks through, there will be people hoping to expand. The PIP gives us a way to be supported by law. It is a legally-defensible way to provide parking.
So, now what?
a. We should initiate a formal review of the establishment of a PIP.
b. Once completed, then we should review he idea with developers and property owners.
c. Then, there needs to be a full vetting by Boro Council, in public.
Sheldon asked for each person in attendance to comment.
Marvin Reed: To some extent you are creating an in lieu payment system. This gives the Regional Planning Board some basis for an alternative means, other than on site parking. The building built on stilts on East Nassau is ugly. The RPB did do something like this when Labyrinth Books wanted to expand into its basement. There was a requirement to create 5 parking spaces for cars. The RPB granted a conditional approval based on a commitment by the University to provide parking with regular shuttle connections to the Jadwin Lot for Labyrinth employees.
Ralph Widner: At the end of the day, this idea needs to merge with a transit plan.
Bob Bruschi: It will certainly help. I agree with you.
Ralph: Let me ask. Will the Seminary, the Institute and Princeton University be able to participate? Do we need a transit district?
Bob B: Who pays is the biggest issue.
Kristin Appelget: This is an interesting concept.
Barbara Trelstad: This is a wonderful beginning. If we were to move in this direction, it would make sense.
Katherine Benesch: I agree. It gives property owners an alternative.
Marvin Reed: It isn’t a guarantee. The property owner has to come to the municipality and negotiate.
Katherine B.: It would increase their stake in the community.
Katherine Kish: I say “Bravo!” I like more options for parking and for transit.
Susan Hockaday: It is very creative. It provokes alternative thinking about space. Also, it makes it possible to do planning and provides the community the opportunity to persuade developers to do what it wants, where.
Jim Begin: A great idea. Do you have any projections on this?
Bob B.: No. But I have had a lot of discussions. I think that as we come out of the recession, we will see a lot of interest.
Sandy Brillhart: It is a great idea. I am happy to see us talking about a multi-modal system.
B Lauf: It is important to note that in order to make a pearl, there needs to be a grain of sand in the oyster. My blunt reaction is that this idea is entirely too car-centric. We have to work to break our dependence on the automobile.
Bob B: 1.1 in garage/1.5 at meter = 2.6-2.8 parking spaces needed. But it is the ratable increase we need. At the moment, the Boro and Palmer Square are the people controlling the parking supply.
B Lauf: Why in a dense area such as the location of the Woolworth building should there be any requirement for parking? In New York City, there is no such requirement.
Bob B: Transit will come if the local community wants it. The Boro has a relatively low vehicle per resident ratio. Employees do need a place to put their cars.
Chip Crider: Interesting. Do we really want a monolithic 5-story downtown? We have always done our planning in a de facto way so that everyone needs a variance. We don’t all share the Hillier vision for our downtown. I applaud your thinking outside of the box.
Susan Hockaday: This proposal pushes us more into a creative solution area. Speaking for older residents, they are very committed to being in this community. Anything that can make it so that we can work, live and shop in this community is good. Making the downtown more accessible is good.
Marvin Bressler: Motor pools. In the military, transportation was a collective enterprise. What is the relationship between this proposal and the Shopping Center?
Bob B: If we can get this going in the Township as well, then we could plan for jitneys and parking together.
Marvin Bressler: Would it be helpful if this were a single community?
Marvin Reed: Yes. We should not be thinking there is just one downtown. There are two. The same principles can be applied there. If the owner of the Shopping Center could be persuaded to make a contribution in lieu of providing more parking spaces, then we might have more residential housing there. It is an area that is zoned for senior housing. It has to be done carefully.
Kevin Wilkes: I want to speak about the word ‘monolithic’. We will never allow that to happen. I do think we can increase density. We need to remember the value of ‘memory objects’. When people talk about this development [Witherspoon House], they don’t talk about the building, they talk about the plaza. We need to be sure to make more parksand then create more housing around them. Let’s not forget the power of good design. The Boro is the Boro, even if there is consolidation. We need to provide a way to keep the property taxes from rising. We must increase the ratables. I am having arguments with Township residents about consolidation who say “Why should I carry the Boro’s tax burden?” So, we must make plans for the Boro.
Sandra Persichetti: It is a very creative idea. Is this similar to a parking authority?
Bob B.: No. I wouldn’t support that.
Sandra P.: Would people who are re-doing their property be guaranteed a parking space?
Bob B.: The concept is that there is a certain demand for parking in a community. But the hardest part is that once you have pooled parking we don’t know where they want to park It is the same as building a road.
Sandra P: $10,000 is cheap.
Bob B.: We can make it more.
Susan H: The fee is basically to offset the cost of building parking, right?
Ann Sears: $10,000 is the amount you’d need?
Bob B: Well, perhaps we’d raise $4,000,000 that way and then bond for the rest. The point is that, at the local level, we need to invest in our community. It’s hard. But it is the right thing to do.
Marvin Reed: One of the variables. Does it get built for public use, or for private, dedicated use? If it is for public use, then you can issue public bonds at an interest rate that is 2-3% lower. Palmer Sq, for instance, is private, and they control their own spaces. The other thing is the emphasis on the automobile. Are the number of spaces required realistic to begin with? We [RPB] recently completed the approvals for the Nassau Inn expansion. They did an elaborate study for the Chamber St Garage...Day use…shared use…night use. They ended up needing fewer spaces than we had thought.
Bob Geddes: I’d like to complement you, Bob. To have this come out of government is very good. This is a proposal that we wish to encourage strategic growth. It might be that we need to compare this to what would happen if we had no growth. It would be helpful to have the information as to what we really need. What do you really mean and how do we do it? Is this a shift away from purely residential to more commercial. What if the center has a greater mix of commercial? As Peter Drucker wrote: what if the office and residence are mixed? The modern concept of zoning might be outmoded. So, I would suggest, with respect, that parking and transportation needs to be required, just as the sewer is required. We need both. The only way we are going to get a Downtown District Plan is through transportation. This is fundamental: We don’t want to lose our Downtown. To summarize: My hunch is that this needs to be fundamentally an economic plan. The Downtown needs it. Te merchants need it. At the same time, we need a social plan. Princeton Future is beginning to work on The Princeton Index information on families and the social construction of the town. And, then, we need a physical plan that would grow out of the economic and the social. People will ask:
Why here?
Why now?
Why me?
Bob B.: What is driving this is the Boro’s lack of ability to drive its tax base.
Bob G.: One definition of a city is shared parking.
Marvin R: The requirement for parking is a major inhibitor.
B Lauf: What time frame are you talking about?
Bob G.: We need a 5-year and a 15-year plan.
Bob B. I think we need a 25-yr to 50-yr horizon.
Kristin: West Windsor has modified it TID several times. It needed to be done with data, within a financial framework.
Bob B: Let’s say the BRT [Bus Rapid Transit] gets built. What changes to our zoning will be needed?
Marvin R.: The garage becomes more valuable, if it can be convertible to other uses.
Bob Geddes: Planning should precede zoning.
Sheldon: Thank you Bob for your exciting presentation. I have asked Sandy Brillhart of the Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association to talk briefly about what makes the most sense for Princeton from her point of view. Sandy knows more about transportation in this area than anyone. Thank you very much for coming this morning. Sandy…
Sandra Brillhart: I will start by talking about my immediate needs. Getting here this morning from my home. I would have loved to take public transit. I pulled out all of the schedules. It is an overwhelming project. I looked at the 605 schedule from Market Fair. It is every 70 minutes. I looked at Tiger Transit which would take me to the Dinky. Then Iíd have to walk or transfer to the FreeB, but it wasnít running anymore. I worried that the connection might not be there. So I drove! The fact is: There is lots of transit. But it is piecemeal. I am not sure that you need more transit. We need to consolidate. To merge schedules. NJ Transit, Tiger Transit, FreeB. We need the equivalent of MapQuest so that you can plan your public transit trip.
Sheldon: That is what Cornell, Tompkins County and Ithaca have figured out [www.tcatbus.com = non-profit].
B Lauf: There has been an erosion of information. There used to be an informal listing at the Kiosk. When they re-did it, the listings have been removed. There should be some sort of discreet electronic display that is easily updatable.
Marvin Reed: Too bad. We could have made that a condition for their approval.
Kristin: We are having conversations. Kim Jackson of PU, Jim & Anton of the Boro’s Traffic & Transportation Committee and Chad Goerner. We have a big map on the table. We are looking to see where we overlay routes and where we can think cooperatively. PU now manages routes for the Seminary. We are hoping that the Hospital, IAS and the Choir College will join with us. Where are the unmet needs? Where are there wheels on the street already? Sandy is right. It is about mapping. PU’s buses now have GPS. So you can tell where you bus is. And we have new signage for Tiger Transit, NJ Transit & FreeB. Cynthia has been there to represent Xtown.
B Lauf: We should remember that 20-30,000 people used to come in and out of Princeton in one day to see the football games before the war.
Ralph Widner: You have to remember that there county boundaries.
Kristin: To keep it manageable, we are sticking to Princeton Boro & Township.
Bob G: Service districts are different. We ought to set the boundaries by the function.
Sandy: I can give you an update on the BRT and NJ Transitís plans. Last week there was a meeting of the Central New Jersey Transportation Forum. The short-term improvements in service:
• extend the 603, fr Trenton to Lawrenceville to Rt One to the Junction
• extend frequency on the 600 & 605
• new routes, to extend from Bucks County to Plainsboro, from Hamilton to Princeton, from New Brunswick to Plainsboro to Jct to Quakerbridge to Ewing. 10,000 new riders. 4.6k diverted from cars. All contingent on $25,000,000 in capital investment and $250,000,000 in increased operating expense. Included in this are some new well-defined transit stops.
Marvin R.: Please tell them, that the new buses have to be environmentally friendly. The 605 has to come every 20 minutes. Te 606 has be more reliable. We need to get from Downtown Princeton to the Hospital. We need to get out Elm Road to PDS and Stuart and the Belle Meade Train Station. Ordinary transit improvements. Not just the BRT!
Sheldon: Thank you, Sandy. We can now hear from Chip Crider. Chip is a resident. An engineer. He has been studying how Personal Rapid Transit ñ[PRT]- might fit in Princeton.
Chip Crider: When I discovered that the University wanted to move the Dinky and the Community didn’t. I decided , just for fun, to dig into the question further. Of course, the Dinky belongs to the Downtown. If it wasn’t for the walk-on traffic to the Dinky, the University could move it even further away. So, I started to think “How could we bring the Dinky into the Downtown?” But is a matter of the size of the cars and the turning radius required. It is outmoded. The weight per passenger is incredible. So I said: “Let’s go smaller. I found PRT.
Small vehicles that run independently on some sort of right-of-way on a guide-way. At each stop, there a few cars waiting. You get in and punch in your destination on a map. Where you want to go. If no one is riding, it doesn’t run. The reasons we can’t do this are not technical. They are political. They are building one at Heathrow’s new terminal. Princeton is not a progressive town. To move an idea forward is impossible. I have met with every appropriate person. PU has said they want to look at it. If the State does it, it will raise the price to a point where it no longer works. We need to do it ourselves. We will provide the last mile.
We start with the Obal’s Station. PU can build the initial run of the PRT under University Place to what I call the Joseph Henry Station beside Palmer House, behind Callaway. There would be a nice park there. A long linear square.
We would move Callaway across Nassau St to be next to the old Town Topics Building. We would be fixing the 206/Nassau/Mercer intersection at the same time. I further propose a one-way road to come across towards town from Boudinot. That would be the initial build. PU is urged to do this as part of its sustainability initiative. There might be some technically-minded alums who would be interested in funding it. We want to make Princeton exciting.
We want PU to plant the seed. The first step might cost around $100,000,000. NJ DOT did a feasibility study of PRT in 2007. Every bullet applies to Princeton. For Princeton University, the PRT has to go where people want to go. When they want to go. It has to be snappy. It has to be efficient. It has to be appealing. The State says there will be a 55% increase in cars by 2020. This is aimed at the second car. It has to be conceived as a whole system. No Jitneys will work because they operate in the roadway and nothing is going to be moving. Too much traffic. It is just like the water table. It needs to be independent. It needs to be 3 dimensional [ie go underground]. 95% of the proposed routes are on University or public lands. We have this window of opportunity. This is the time to plan. But we’re stuck.
Marvin Reed: Could it go all the way to the Junction? A one-seat ride?
Chip: Yes. You are right. The problems are political. Union rules and so forth. I am looking for the University to start this, though.
Marvin Reed: I just heard that the BRT roadway for the Dinky that has been proposed doesn’t have enough space. A new roadway would have to be constructed for the BRT. This enormously expensive. As to the PRT, if you can avoid a tunnel.
Chip: It is impossible to get a grade crossing. It has to go over & under. It really isn’t tunneling as much as it is excavation and drop-in.
B Lauf: In my view, there is too much detail. But a bulleted list shod be explored. It is your concept that is important. Students, seniors, administration.
Marvin Reed: What do we think the cost is to go underground? If the Boro gave up its metered parking on University Place, maybe it would fit on grade.
Kristin: We are proposing to build a new Dinky Station. We believe that it is important. It will be multi-modal: bike-bus-train-pedestrian…and we have to recognize that there are cars.
B Lauf: Planning is the key word.
Kristin: PU has done a lot of work on transportation. What do we have to do in the next 25 years…in the next 50 years? Where are the users?
Sandy: Are there any projections on ridership?
Chip: The cost per ride is 30-40¢ vs 60¢ for bus, if itís full.
Sheldon thanked all for coming.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15.
Monday, January 5, 2009
What Next?
Join Princeton Future to set priorities for The Princeton Partnership
1. HOW WELL DO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES WORK?
2. HOW MIGHT NEW STRUCTURES HELP?
3. HOW MIGHT CONSOLIDATION HELP?
At the September forum, Princeton Future introduced the concept of The Princeton Partnership.
It might help create new structures such as:
Public Authority
To provide for investment in public transit, coordinated management of shuttles and balanced, shared parking for the Borough, Township, Princeton University and other institutions, corporations and businesses
Improvement District
To provide programs designed specifically to benefit the residents of Princeton and its business community with an independent source of funds
Community Development Corporation
To provide additional ways to promote the economy and livability of the Princeton Community by working together to plan for, invest in and to manage our future
At the November 8th Forum, we agreed to convene follow-up meetings with community leaders on each of the subjects below.
Please participate in the session of your choice at 10 AM in the Princeton Public Library:
#1. December 9, 2009: MOBILITY & TRANSPORTATION. Robert Geddes, Chair
- some solutions to traffic congestion & parking
- effective forms of public transportation & integrated shuttle services
- resolution of the future of the Dinky and Dinky station
- reconciling pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles
#2. January 6, 2009: DOWNTOWN. Peter Kann, Chair
- a range of retail, including family owned stores, selling necessities as well as luxury goods
- residential units that are affordable for people at multiple income levels
- adequate parking & transportation
- a clean and safe environment
- a Downtown District Plan as part of the Community Master Plan
#3. February 3, 2009: HOUSING. Sheldon Sturges, Chair.
- housing available and affordable for seniors, young families and the workforce
- preservation of the character of neighborhoods
- some solutions to high and rising property taxes
And then, on February 14th, 2009, please join us in the Community Room of the Princeton Public Library for a Public Open Meeting of The Princeton Partnership: 9:00 am - 12:00 pm
Coffee and refreshments will be provided by the Witherspoon Bread Company. Verbatim transcripts of the June, 2007 Open Meeting, the October, 2007 & March 29, May 3 and June 7, 2008,
Open Meetings are posted @ www.princetonfuture.org.
The 184 page book Listening To Each Other 2007-2008 is now on reserve at the Library.
January 5, 2009 5:22 AM
1. HOW WELL DO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES WORK?
2. HOW MIGHT NEW STRUCTURES HELP?
3. HOW MIGHT CONSOLIDATION HELP?
At the September forum, Princeton Future introduced the concept of The Princeton Partnership.
It might help create new structures such as:
Public Authority
To provide for investment in public transit, coordinated management of shuttles and balanced, shared parking for the Borough, Township, Princeton University and other institutions, corporations and businesses
Improvement District
To provide programs designed specifically to benefit the residents of Princeton and its business community with an independent source of funds
Community Development Corporation
To provide additional ways to promote the economy and livability of the Princeton Community by working together to plan for, invest in and to manage our future
At the November 8th Forum, we agreed to convene follow-up meetings with community leaders on each of the subjects below.
Please participate in the session of your choice at 10 AM in the Princeton Public Library:
#1. December 9, 2009: MOBILITY & TRANSPORTATION. Robert Geddes, Chair
- some solutions to traffic congestion & parking
- effective forms of public transportation & integrated shuttle services
- resolution of the future of the Dinky and Dinky station
- reconciling pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles
#2. January 6, 2009: DOWNTOWN. Peter Kann, Chair
- a range of retail, including family owned stores, selling necessities as well as luxury goods
- residential units that are affordable for people at multiple income levels
- adequate parking & transportation
- a clean and safe environment
- a Downtown District Plan as part of the Community Master Plan
#3. February 3, 2009: HOUSING. Sheldon Sturges, Chair.
- housing available and affordable for seniors, young families and the workforce
- preservation of the character of neighborhoods
- some solutions to high and rising property taxes
And then, on February 14th, 2009, please join us in the Community Room of the Princeton Public Library for a Public Open Meeting of The Princeton Partnership: 9:00 am - 12:00 pm
Coffee and refreshments will be provided by the Witherspoon Bread Company. Verbatim transcripts of the June, 2007 Open Meeting, the October, 2007 & March 29, May 3 and June 7, 2008,
Open Meetings are posted @ www.princetonfuture.org.
The 184 page book Listening To Each Other 2007-2008 is now on reserve at the Library.
January 5, 2009 5:22 AM
Change accelerates, problems persist
Please come to the Arts Council of Princeton to continue the conversation on Saturday, at 9 AM, September 20, 2008
CHANGE
The Hospital is moving to Plainsboro.
The Ys are preparing their expansion plans.
The Recreation Department is completing its long-range plan.
Lubert & Adler, a developer from Philadelphia, can build 280 units on the Witherspoon Campus of the Hospital.
NassauHKT is building 57 units on the Tulane St Lot as part of Phase 2 of the Boroughʼs Redevelopment Plan.
Palmer Square Management is expanding the Nassau Inn and is building Palmer North, 100 market-rate residential units on Paul Robeson Place.
Princeton University is proposing an Arts & Transit Neighborhood on the west side of its campus.
The location of the Dinky Station is an urgent issue. Princeton University is
proposing a large garage on the east side of its campus.
Private developers have been purchasing buildings and properties in the Downtown, but there is not yet a District Plan that serves both their interests
and those of the community.
Residents are being forced out by the increase in property taxes. More & more, our teachers, fire and police are living elsewhere.
SHOPPING
The mix of the stores in our Downtown continues to change with the disappearance of family-owned stores and of stores selling lifeʼs necessities.
Retail no longer serves our everyday needs.
New Garage at Township Complex for Valley Rd Building & New Swimming Pool?
New Garage at Palmer Stadium?
The University is proposing a 1300 car garage .
New Garage for the Ys, Stanworth, Merwick,
Witherspoon Jackson & for Downtown employees?
New Garage behind 185 Nassau?
PROBLEMS
HOUSING. We, in the community, want a town with neighborhoods for many different types of people. All of us, of every economic level, want to be able to afford to continue to live here, and not be taxed and priced away.
DOWNTOWN. We want a town that remains a thriving town, not a quaint curiosity, not a suburban sprawl.
TOWN & TOWN. Whether, technically, one Princeton or two, we want both the Township and the Boro to work as one for all Princetonians.
GOWN & TOWN. We want the University and the Community to work together as genuine partners in creative, equitable relationships.
JOBS. We need to keep Princeton thriving. We need economic development to
create new job opportunities and to broaden the tax base.
PROPERTY TAXES. Already high and rising fast, property taxes are forcing our long-term residents to leave town. This limits the diversity of those who
wish to live here.
PLANS. We do not have plans to preserve the character of each of our neighborhoods. We need district plans for each neighborhood, including the new Arts & Transit Neighborhood & the Downtown.
TRAFFIC. Increasingly, we are at a standstill. There are not enough places to park. There is a need to invest in: a dispersed & connected network of ʻsmartʼ parking garages; mass rapid transit; integrated shuttles & safe bike paths. When the community & the institutions build, can garages, transit & bike paths be built & managed cooperatively?
DIVERSITY. We want a town that values all forms of diversity, from ethnic to intellectual, from treasuring its historic African American community to welcoming and assisting its new Latino immigrants.
SUSTAINABILITY. We need to recognize the priority of environmental protection in every aspect of our individual and collective activities.
Princeton Future
PO BOX 1172
Prince609-921-6100
www.princetonfuture.org
CHANGE
The Hospital is moving to Plainsboro.
The Ys are preparing their expansion plans.
The Recreation Department is completing its long-range plan.
Lubert & Adler, a developer from Philadelphia, can build 280 units on the Witherspoon Campus of the Hospital.
NassauHKT is building 57 units on the Tulane St Lot as part of Phase 2 of the Boroughʼs Redevelopment Plan.
Palmer Square Management is expanding the Nassau Inn and is building Palmer North, 100 market-rate residential units on Paul Robeson Place.
Princeton University is proposing an Arts & Transit Neighborhood on the west side of its campus.
The location of the Dinky Station is an urgent issue. Princeton University is
proposing a large garage on the east side of its campus.
Private developers have been purchasing buildings and properties in the Downtown, but there is not yet a District Plan that serves both their interests
and those of the community.
Residents are being forced out by the increase in property taxes. More & more, our teachers, fire and police are living elsewhere.
SHOPPING
The mix of the stores in our Downtown continues to change with the disappearance of family-owned stores and of stores selling lifeʼs necessities.
Retail no longer serves our everyday needs.
New Garage at Township Complex for Valley Rd Building & New Swimming Pool?
New Garage at Palmer Stadium?
The University is proposing a 1300 car garage .
New Garage for the Ys, Stanworth, Merwick,
Witherspoon Jackson & for Downtown employees?
New Garage behind 185 Nassau?
PROBLEMS
HOUSING. We, in the community, want a town with neighborhoods for many different types of people. All of us, of every economic level, want to be able to afford to continue to live here, and not be taxed and priced away.
DOWNTOWN. We want a town that remains a thriving town, not a quaint curiosity, not a suburban sprawl.
TOWN & TOWN. Whether, technically, one Princeton or two, we want both the Township and the Boro to work as one for all Princetonians.
GOWN & TOWN. We want the University and the Community to work together as genuine partners in creative, equitable relationships.
JOBS. We need to keep Princeton thriving. We need economic development to
create new job opportunities and to broaden the tax base.
PROPERTY TAXES. Already high and rising fast, property taxes are forcing our long-term residents to leave town. This limits the diversity of those who
wish to live here.
PLANS. We do not have plans to preserve the character of each of our neighborhoods. We need district plans for each neighborhood, including the new Arts & Transit Neighborhood & the Downtown.
TRAFFIC. Increasingly, we are at a standstill. There are not enough places to park. There is a need to invest in: a dispersed & connected network of ʻsmartʼ parking garages; mass rapid transit; integrated shuttles & safe bike paths. When the community & the institutions build, can garages, transit & bike paths be built & managed cooperatively?
DIVERSITY. We want a town that values all forms of diversity, from ethnic to intellectual, from treasuring its historic African American community to welcoming and assisting its new Latino immigrants.
SUSTAINABILITY. We need to recognize the priority of environmental protection in every aspect of our individual and collective activities.
Princeton Future
PO BOX 1172
Prince609-921-6100
www.princetonfuture.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
