February 15, 1999

Ms. Roseanne Koberle
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
1 Newark Center, 17th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102

BY FACSIMILE: 639-1953

RE: Proposed Amendments to the Fiscal Year 1998-2002 TIP

Dear Ms. Koberle:

These comments on the proposed amendments of January 15, 1999 to the FY 1998-2002 TIP are submitted on behalf of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

1. The Bergen Arches project should not be included in the TIP at this stage. If included, it should be described as a study and should not have a predetermined outcome.

NJTPA proposes to add a new project, the Bergen Arches (DBNUM 98537), to the TIP. The project description reads: "Proposed renovation of rail tunnels beneath Jersey City into motor vehicle tunnels which will enhance access to the Hudson County Waterfront." This project cannot be added to the TIP while the conformity freeze remains in place. '93.104(c)(2) of the federal conformity rule (62 FR 43780) states: "A TIP amendment requires a new conformity determination for the entire TIP before the amendment is approved by the MPO or accepted by DOT, unless the amendment merely adds or deletes exempt projects listed in '93.126 and '93.127." The Bergen Arches project is clearly not an exempt project, but rather a major new roadway. The fact that the only phase appearing in the proposed amendment is "PRD" (project design) does not alter the fact that the project as described is not exempt and cannot be added to the TIP during the freeze.

If the project were described as a study, then it would presumably be exempt for conformity purposes, but would still raise concerns. The purpose of a study at this stage should be to determine the need for a transportation facility in the Bergen Arches and make recommendations on the nature of that facility. Yet the project description in the proposed TIP specifies "motor vehicle tunnels." The description should reflect all modal alternatives as equally viable options.

More generally, the practice of placing only the study phase of a project in the TIP is problematic. Projects under study should remain in Study and Development until their scope is well-defined. Aside from altering the nature of the document, inserting projects prematurely in the TIP raises concerns about the projects' later phases ending up in the TIP without proper public review and air quality analysis.

2. The Route 139 projects should be removed from the TIP until rescoping is completed.

The proposed amendments include changes to two Route 139 projects, DBNUM 53B and 53C. The projects are being rescoped, and PRD and design phases are being added to the TIP. Further delay on these longstanding rehabilitation projects is unfortunate, but the projects should be removed from the TIP until rescoping is completed. While both projects as proposed earlier were classified as exempt for conformity purposes, their scope must now be regarded as unknown. Unless more information is provided regarding the range of changes under consideration for the projects, they can no longer be assumed to be exempt. Thus, the proposed amendments cannot be made during the conformity freeze.

Although a change in scope would in theory trigger a review of the exempt status of the projects at a later date, this is not assured in practice. TIP descriptions are often not sufficiently accurate or detailed to make clear the nature of a project or its eligibility for exempt status. Yet if the TIP description remains unchanged, changes in scope may go unnoticed.

Given the proximity of these projects to the Bergen Arches, it is particularly important that they be monitored and that any changes are reflected in the TIP.

Sincerely,

Therese Langer, Phd.
Staff Scientist