February 15, 1999

Roseanne Koberle
Information Officer
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102

RE: DBNUM 98537

Dear Ms. Koberle:

We are a coalition of local neighborhood associations, New Jersey transportation advocacy groups, and many concerned New Jersey residents as listed below. We are concerned about the Bergen Arches Project Development Study. We believe that the Study must seriously examine a variety of alternative development strategies for the Bergen Arches, not just a highway for motor vehicles.

Attached to this letter, please find both our detailed statement and an appended light rail proposal from CBT (Committee for Better Transit), an intelligent alternative.

HART is a coalition which includes members from Jersey City's Van Vorst Park, Hamilton Park and Harsimus Cove neighborhood groups; Committee for Better Transit, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, NJ Association of Rail Passengers, NJ Sierra Club and the Transit Committee of Bergen County.

On behalf of HART,

Rick James
Mia Scanga
Steve Lanset

Jersey City, NJ
Phone: 201-200-1958

CC: email all members
        mail Assemblyman Joseph Doria


February 15, 1999

RE: Comments regarding Bergen Arches DBNUM 98537

"There is also a need for more concentrated development patterns, ones that can provide for more transportation options." (Regional Transportation Plan for Northern New Jersey, p. 44)

"Greater densities of population and employment and mixing of land uses make transportation options other than automobiles much more feasible." (RTP, p. 44)

"...regional travel behavior, especially increasing automobile behavior, has a significant impact on air quality." (RTP, p. 34)

Background

After several decades of post-Hague era land use planing and administration, Jersey City is realizing a fairly dense, mixed-use waterfront. The arrangement of the ensemble's components, as well as specific design decisions, are questionable; on balance, however, the waterfront does exemplify the State Development and Redevelopment Plan's goal of directing growth toward existing urban centers and utilizing existing infrastructure. In this case, the existing infrastructure includes three PATH stations, (with connections to the New York and Newark subways, as well as metropolitan commuter rail), ferries, "busways" and two exits of the New Jersey Turnpike Hudson County Extension. To this is being added the $1.2 billion Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the current waterfront transportation "modal split" is reflective of the availability of public transit.

Another Highway ?!

What is NJDOT's and the City of Jersey City's less than imaginative proposal for a new, federally aided, transportation "improvement"? Another highway ! In this case, a highway that will run parallel to Route 139 through the heart of Jersey City. A highway that might well preclude efficient rail freight access to New Jersey's most logical site for a twenty-first century deep water port: Bayonne MOT.. Jersey City's Mayor Schundler seems to have taken the lead in promoting this venture. City taxpayers are already paying the fees of project fundraisers/lobbyists Gluck Shaw, although there really isn't any concrete proposal to fund. None the less, the official Jersey City web site assures us that "The Bergen Arches roadway is consistent with the goals of the Clean Air Act." We think that the NJTPA, the DEP and EPA might want to conduct independent analyses. Most recently, after failing to generate a groundswell of local support for what promises to do for Jersey City what the Cross-Bronx Expressway did for the Bronx, Schundler promotes the highway as a way to get out of Jersey City.

The Bergen Arches project would be the final segment of what is in effect a Turnpike Extension from Secaucus to Eleventh St. This also means it's a Turnpike Extension to the mouth of the Holland Tunnel. Of course, it's not going to the Holland Tunnel. Just very, very close. To say otherwise would articulate a fatal flaw, as no one is suggesting that the capacity of the Holland Tunnel be increased. Just how this magical segregation by destination is to be maintained remains unsaid. Local drivers are going to require tunnel access, and non-local an Eleventh St. exit. It's only a matter of time until savvy truckers and commuters figure out how to beat the system, regardless of any paper restrictions. Here, heavy trucking through Downtown Jersey City comes to mind. The same holds for the journey west, clogging whichever should be the less congested of the parallel ways (Route 139 or Arches) out of town.

Following the inexorable logic of highway planning, the resultant mess might provoke the construction of a third parallel highway, delivering us from the dread congestion with yet another free flowing highway that promises to improve air quality.

Just another highway proposal. As such, the Arches roadway is a local variation on one of the illusions of our epoch: we can build ourselves out of congestion. Pour enough concrete and the traffic will flow freely. Through the operation of a sort of Say's Law of highways, the first casualty is usually the very urbanity we are trying to conserve. Given the experience of the last fifty years, we'd thought this was pretty common knowledge. What is truly original about the Arches proposal is its dependence upon the new Turnpike Extension, intended to serve what is in effect a new city in the wetlands.

Mysterious Neglect of Jersey City's Interests

Allied Rail Junction makes a lot of sense; it is part of a cluster of rail improvements that have significantly increased use of commuter rail in New Jersey. But, somehow, a logical rail link has been transmogrified into a most inappropriately sited edge city. If ever a real estate development didn't need to be fed by an expensive public highway improvement it's Allied Junction, which is by definition rail accessible. From an environmental perspective, the use of sensitive wetlands for commercial and highway use is highly suspect. From an economic perspective, the allocation of scarce public transportation funds to a new city close to existing urban centers seems to mock the State Development and Redevelopment Plan ("Support the goals of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan," RTP, p. 44). That Jersey City public officials should become veritable cheerleaders for the competition is deeply mystifying.

Equally mystifying is the apparent use of public funds to encourage people to drive to work. Sometimes this is called "induced demand." This is not to suggest that otherwise unemployed persons will awake on workday mornings and decide to play road tourist. This is to suggest that most workers in the region have before them a choice of transport modes. If they have made the significant "upfront" investment in a car and

New Jersey insurance, a very attractive alternative is to commute by private automobile. This attractiveness is diminished that if everyone makes this modal choice, all lose. Build it and they will come, abandoning perfectly serviceable public transit. Elastic demand is being stretched in precisely the wrong direction.

Of course, all can't come. Many can't afford a car. The disabled and the elderly often can't, or choose not to drive. Many move to urban areas to escape the car culture. All of the above get to share the deteriorating air quality as well as pay the taxes that constitute the vast public subsidy of the highway industry ("Support access to transportation to all citizens." RTP, p. 36).

Lack of Cost / Benefit Analysis of Roadway

Detailed analysis of the Bergen Arches roadway proposal is not possible because there is no detailed proposal. Nor is there an undetailed proposal. We are presented with a notion and partial federal funding. No problem statement; no goals. Given the inchoate nature of the "notion," we are perplexed at the certainty of some public officials that this is necessarily the best use of public money. Perhaps it is, but surely not based on the evidence at hand. If proponents are in possession of more compelling arguments, they should put them into the public arena for analysis at the earliest possible moment.

Existing descriptions hardly inspire confidence that the Arches proposal is the fruit of rigorous, impartial analysis. The "Bergen Arches" (DBNUM 98537) is "described" as "renovation of rail tunnels beneath Jersey City...." The NJTPA News Release (Feb. 2, 1999) describes the Bergen Arches project as "using an abandoned railway tunnel." There is a railway tunnel near what we presume to be the project location. It was dug through the Palisades between 1857-1860 by the Erie railroad, and is considered one of the great achievements of nineteenth century civil engineering. To the best of our knowledge (and that of its owners) this tunnel still carries rail freight, and is not abandoned. We surmise the proponents are considering the Erie Cut, which is adjacent to the tunnel. The cut incorporates several short tunnels, but is largely open. We point this out not to indulge in an academic exercise, but to remind the NJTPA and sponsors that full and accurate disclosure of information is a necessary pre-condition for public involvement. ("Provide for meaningful public involvement," RTP, p. 37).

Moving Freight

While we cannot comment in detail upon the proposal, we do note several disturbing implications of roadway pre-emption of the Bergen Arches. Perhaps most salient would be the diminution of existing rail freight capacity to the Bayonne/southern Jersey City waterfront, a most logical location for a deep water port capable of accommodating the next generation of supercargo ships ("Support efficient goods movement"RTP p. 39). The Port Authority has been wildly successful in using its bonding power to build many of the bridges and tunnels that underpin our highway system. It has been equally unsuccessful in achieving its historic purpose of rationalizing rail freight in the Port of NY/NJ. We lag far behind many American cities in the re-introduction of rail freight as an alternative to highway destroying tractor-trailer transport; we lag even further behind progressive cities such as Rotterdam, which has successfully reconciled modern rail freight and urban redevelopment. Given the much discussed mismatch in Hudson County between "Information Age" office jobs and local, blue collar job skills, and the economic "multiplier effect" of a modern sea/rail intermodal center, we view with much skepticism any public investment that would undercut the establishment of a deep ocean port and intermodal facility in a region that desperately needs well paying blue collar jobs. We also assume that the use of federal funds to take through condemnation integral rail rights-of-way would be a major action of significant environmental impact, requiring full analysis of all alternative actions. Absent rail, the transportation and environmental implications of twenty-mile long caravans of tractor-trailers departing from supercargo ports ought also to be borne in mind.

Moving People

While roadway proponents promise better "access to the Hudson County waterfront," we wonder how much thought has been given to the implications of this promise. How is traffic headed north of the Holland Tunnel (Hoboken or Weehawken) to approach its destination? The main north/south route, Henderson St./Marin Blvd., appears restricted in capacity by existing buildings and the NJ Transit railyard. Is a proposal for a new waterfront roadway implied by this proposal? Presumably, much traffic to be disgorged at Eleventh St., Jersey City, will be headed south, where much new office construction lies. What happens at rush "hour" when traffic to or from the Turnpike/Arches, Turnpike/Extension and more local traffic converges on Washington Blvd. We assume that much of this traffic stream will attempt to slow in order to enter existing and proposed parking structures and lots. What does this do to "flow?" How does the Light Rail's crossing of Washington Blvd. impact upon all of this?

We believe that the Arches roadway will be more successful at displacing congestion than relieving it. Faced with the inevitable traffic jam, the resourceful motorist will eventually find his or her way onto the inland street grid. This will initially offer great individual mobility, until the hordes of less resourceful motorists discover the same trick. This reflux will, of course, degrade the quality of life inland. Given the significant residential concentration at the Newport complex on the Jersey City waterfront, complete with small parks, day care facilities and, of course, the waterfront walkway, we cannot help but entertain serious misgivings about future air quality, noise and pedestrian safety there. All of these will ultimately effect rent levels and property values. Developed with a less suburban transportation bias, the waterfront would, paradoxically, be a far quieter, calmer place. It might no longer be characterized visually by its parking lots and structures.

Environmental Questions

What of the road in the canyon? Highways depressed this deeply are quite rare. We don't know how much of the air pollution is freely dispersed to the surrounding area, and how much remains trapped within the cut. Neither prospect is very encouraging. The Arches are roughly contiguous with the heavily trafficked Route 139. (aka U.S. 1&9), also undergoing NJTPA TIP prioritized modification. The specific proposals for

Route 139 are at present somewhat murky; the key segments are scheduled for "rescoping." Given their proximity, and the clear interpenetrations of their Areas of Potential Effect, these two projects should be reviewed for cumulative effect (both in the everyday sense of the term and the rather more specific meaning contained in the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for National Environmental Policy Act based review).

We think it self-evident that the agglomeration of two high capacity highways will have considerable impact upon the physical and social city they would bisect. The result would be the creation of a freeway zone worthy of Los Angeles, though even less free. When the Bergen Arches were created almost 100 years ago, (part of a complex deal struck between the Erie RR. And Jersey City, involving the elevation of the 10th/11th St. tracks) local opposition was intense. Jersey City's then Mayor, Mark Fagin, vetoed the requisite local street closings as not in Jersey City's interest, but was over-ridden by the Street Commissioners. With today's heightened environmental awareness, this proposal will prove even more controversial. Given the proximity of schools, hospitals, and a nursing home, the projected route seems a perverse illustration of everything that is to be avoided in "truck" route selection, as adumbrated in the last substantial review of the Jersey City Masterplan. (Buckhurst, et. Al., Berger & Assoc., 1982). This comprehensive review also stresses the need to bring the city into compliance with air quality standards, to strive to reduce automobile traffic, and to "encourage mass transportation as viable alternative to the automobile (Jersey City Master Plan Review, 1982, p.74). Historic Preservation

In passing, we note that, after much vacillation, the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Officer has finally deemed the " Route 139" segment of the 1&9 Corridor eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Holland Tunnel is already a National Historic Landmark. The Bergen Arches are listed in the Historic American Engineering Record. The Arches/Tunnel complex are in all probability eligible for listing on the National Register (significant in engineering, transportation and local social/political history). All of this constrains major changes to the structure's historic integrity if federal funding is involved. If citizens are not satisfied with the determinations of project and state officials, they have the right to appeal directly to the Keeper of the National Record and, for, adverse impacts, to the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This project will doubtless have to pass review under Sections 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 4(f) of the (U.S.) DOT Act of 1966. This will significantly constrain physical alteration of the Arches. Given the tight clearance in the Arches, we suggest that this matter be investigated early in the project's study. The recently completed TAMS Preservation Plan for the 1&9 Corridor (as per a Federal Highway Authority Memorandum of Agreement) should be incorporated into the study; copies should be made available locally to the public.

We further note that the Hamilton Park local, state and federal historic district will be harmed by traffic noise, fumes, vibration and glare from the Arches egress that will run adjacent to it. Considerable public and private resources have been invested here, resulting in the development of one of Jersey City's most desirable residential neighborhoods. It is ironic that this effort should be capped by the investment of more public funds into a project that threatens the quality of life in this area.

Safety Issues

We can't help but wonder if New Jersey DOT is going to stick to its usual safety standards in this project. Median Strip? Full shoulders? With four lanes of traffic ? All this in fifty-six feet ? Not that safety isn't a great concern in this rock cavern, which has to be the last place in the world a motorist wants to break down, or even be stuck in traffic. Fumes. Noise. Stench. And then there's the little matter of cars and trucks bouncing off the vertical rock walls. (Inevitably, accidents do happen.) We can only speculate on the topic of emergency vehicle access, but we know that the vehicles will be called from Jersey City ("Above all the transportation system must be safe" RTP, p. 42).

Given the propensity of local miscreants to drop debris, such as bowling balls, on traffic passing through the depressed portion of Route 139, (sometimes with fatal accuracy), we assume some sort of protective barriers would have to be erected to protect motorists in the Bergen Arches. Whether typical masonry sound barriers, 10 feet high metal fencing or some combination of the two, the screens would constitute a significant visual intrusion, compounded by their ability to collect graffiti and trash.

Need Transportation Alternatives Analysis

Given the vacuousness of the proposal, we could speculate ad infinitum. We might more profitably recognize the common yardstick by which transportation proposals are to be adjudicated: "the overall social, economic, energy and environmental effects of transportation decisions" (RTP, p. 35). To this must be added the N.E.P.A. requirement that all reasonable alternatives be objectively examined in an environmental analysis. We submit that, given these eminently reasonable criteria and methods, the roadway option for the Bergen Arches is, on its face, the most improbable of satisfactory transportation alternatives. There may be facts or arguments that have escaped our attention; we invite reasoned response. To date, we have only heard invective and ad hominem argument.

We suggest, however, that public-oriented rail transit is a more fruitful avenue of exploration. Within these parameters, the possibilities are many: all rail freight, combined rail freight/passenger rail, combined rail freight/light rail, all light rail. Augmentation of existing rail capacity should be examined; PATH capacity is critical to continued Hudson waterfront development, highway access is far down on the list. Generally, rail is, per passenger/mile or ton/mile, much more energy efficient than private car or truck. Likewise, while far from perfect, it is far less polluting. Rail can deliver people or goods to the emerging waterfront much more effectively and compactly than any highway might. These have all become rather commonplace observations. Skeptics rightly point out that diffuse settlement patterns in commuter "catchment basins" often make any form of passenger rail uneconomic. We suggest that densely settled Hudson County and parts of the adjacent counties, with their streetcar suburb origins, are good candidates for economic rail use. A more richly articulated intermodal light/heavy rail network would not only tap poorly served areas, such as Jersey City Heights and North Bergen, that have not benefited from the waterfront boom, by allowing those without private transportation in Jersey City access to employment in newer work centers such as Secaucus. This would help achieve some of the Access to Jobs provisions of TEA-21, and at the same time raise property values in some of the "transportationally disadvantaged" sections of Hudson County.

People in Hudson County settled in compact, transit friendly, "sustainable" communities long before there were New Urbanists to tell them it was the correct thing to do. More recently, restoration, adaptive re-use and new construction here have counter-balanced the tendency of growth towards the urban fringe. This ought to be encouraged by public investment decisions. The most recent census data for Jersey City indicates that about 50% of the labor force travels to work by some form of public transit, on foot or by bicycle. If suburban and ex-urban municipalities have chosen sprawl, why should the residents of Hudson County have to suffer the consequences of those unwise land use decisions ("Use the transportation planning process to promote wise land use" RTP, p. 39)? We endorse wiser land use decisions statewide, coupled with new rail (as proposed for Bergen County) or paratransit. The least intrusive means of transportation should be required of those traversing this densely settled county. This is a basic question of equity. Happily, the least intrusive is also the most effective at supplying workers to our office towers, that have been sited near public transit.

An objective analysis of transportation alternatives for the Bergen Arches should begin with a clear statement of the problem for which a solution is sought. Given the backlog of projects needed to simply maintain existing transportation infrastructure, the fruit of years of deferred maintenance, this need must be compelling. Our discussions with project supporters and funders indicate a fundamental confusion whether this roadway is needed to move people or goods. We fail to understand how any proposal can be advanced for funding until its basic purpose is articulated.

Need for Objective Governmental Review

Clearly, the highway's local proponents have reached their conclusions. Having reached a verdict, they now want a speedy trial. One of the central aims of federal environmental legislation is to prevent proponents of one particular scheme from becoming so emotionally wedded to it that viable alternatives are early and summarily discounted. We suggest that such is the case in this instance. We question the ability of the local sponsor to conduct an objective and dispassionate analysis of all reasonable alternatives.

We trust that the ultimate lead federal agency will assume responsibility for ensuring that the local entities build environmental considerations into their own planning process as soon as federal involvement is foreseen. It is, after all, federal law (NEPA Regulation, Section 1501.2(d)). We further trust that the lead federal agency will assume (46 FR 18029) ultimate responsibility for evaluation of environmental issues.

The selection of and consultation with contractor/consultants will obviously be crucial to the conduct of an impartial study. We assume Council on Environmental Quality conflict of interest regulations will be followed. A consultant with a future interest in later work on an alternative would clearly bring a bias to the study.

The Bergen Arches/Tunnel complex was built for rail use. Part is still used for rail; its owners anticipate more rail use. As far as we can determine, the only contract that might provide for surrender of some or all of the Arches by their owners is for a "transitway." Rail is generally recognized as less polluting, more energy efficient and capable of delivering people and goods most efficiently. It also encourages wise land use. This being the case, the selection of a roadway as the initial hypothesis to be tested strikes us as a bad methodological assumption. Before initiating the highly contentious process of highway capacity augmentation in this region, let's look at solutions suggested by the RTP and TEA-21.