Critique of PU A&T Site Plan

1. Critique of PU A&T Site Plan Alain L. Kornhauser, PhD 11/29/2012

3. The Arts Campus Can be built without Once Again Moving the Dinky

4. Below-grade Access 2 Lot 7 At-grade Access 2 Lot 7 Lewis Center for the Arts Pedestrian Access • Build all of Arts Campus • Access Lot 7 • Create Pedestrian Access • Reduce Traffic Conflicts A&TP3

5. South Entrance Below-grade access: Very feasible because Garage’s 8’2”Ceiling Constraint North Entrance Below-grade Access 2 Lot 7 At-grade Access 2 Lot 7 Lewis Center for the Arts Pedestrian Access C-400 • Build all of Arts Campus • Access Lot 7 • Create Pedestrian Access • Reduce Traffic Conflicts A&TP3

6. @ Princeton Jct. At-grade access: Very feasible because Pedestrian & Vehicular grade Xings of Dinky currently exist @ Princeton Jct. & Faculty Rd. Below-grade Access 2 Lot 7 At-grade Access 2 Lot 7 @ Faculty Rd. Lewis Center for the Arts Pedestrian Access • Build all of Arts Campus • Access Lot 7 • Create Pedestrian Access • Reduce Traffic Conflicts A&TP3

7. Also Grade Crossings aren’t Rare According to NJ Transit*: *NJT has stated in response to an OPRA request that it has no documentation about any request by the University for a grade crossing at this location

8. As Proposed A&TP1

9. As Proposed: Without Moving the Dinky Access at-grade North of Lot 7 A&TP1

10. As Proposed: Without Moving the Dinky Access under Tracks South of Lot 7 A&TP1

11. PU can even extend Blair Walk without touching the Dinky Blair Walk: Magnolia Extension – without touching the Dinky Blair Walk: Beatrix Farrand’s Magnolias - Existing A&TP47 A&TP48

12. Major Issue:A Substantial Portion of the Site Plan (3.5 acres) is in Violation of an Easement Restricting Development to “Public Transportation Purposes”

13. Excerpts from the “1984 “Sales Agreement” The Land (with Restricted Development Rights) Purchased from NJT by PU in 1984 1.584 acres in Borough; 1.98 acres in Township* *’85 Deed

14. Why the University agreed to the Easement

15. Planning the Move Contemplated by the 1984 Contract (DP 2/18/88)

16. Google Earth with Property Boundaries 1.584 acres in Borough; 1.98 acres in Township* * ‘85 Deed

17. Google Earth with Property Boundaries

18. Project Site w Easement Boundary C-101

19. As Proposed Construction within easement for public transportation Question: Doesn’t the Planning Board have the obligation to not violate legitimate easements? (A: easements are rights of individuals, zonings are rights of communities; both need to be enforces by Planning Boards) C-205 A&TP1

20. Major Issue:A Substantial Portion of the Site Plan Proposes “Elements” on Lands Not Owned by the Applicant

21. Google Earth with Property Boundaries

22. Google Earth with Borough Property Boundaries Highlighted

23. Google Earth & Site Plan with Borough Property Boundaries Highlighted • So…the Site Plan includes “elements” on land(s) NOT owned by the University. • Princeton Borough • Others? • Question: • Are these other Owner(s) co-applicants? • So…the Site Plan includes “elements” on land(s) NOT owned by the University. • Princeton Borough • Others? A&TP1

24. Traffic Impacts

25. The Roundabout

26. Even with the grading, Roundabout is on an undesirable slope

27. Many Conflicts in Tight Traffic Circle • Bicycle Conflicts • VehicleConflicts • Pedestrian Conflicts • This is a Mess A&TP21

28. A Better Circulation Plan… • Make the whole McCarter Block a “Roundabout” • Conflicts are distributed to locations each having long parallel one-way lanes • Northbound flows are oriented toward their natural direction up University Place • Southbound flows are organized down Alexander St. • More angled parking provided along Univ. Place A&TP1

29. University Place Currently Serves the Master Plan Adequately • Community Favors: Dinky over BRT • Master Plan says nothing about a “Wawa” (which creates most of the current problems) • Pedestrian crossing, traffic flow and safety are improved with ONE- WAY around McCarter A&TP10

30. What about the other four (4) Pedestrian Crossings?

31. Traffic Analysis Insufficiently Accurate to Measure Delay to 0.3 Seconds!

32. Hypothetical & Unsubstantiated Based on Unsubstantiated “Total” Build-out Base on Unsubstantiated Lot 7 Route Choice

33. Traffic Study Does NOT allow the Universityto make these estimates • Traffic study did NOT follow cars from Alexander to/from Elm Drive that would allow them to make these claims. • Numbers are “pulled out of the air”! • Access Road Transfers Internal VMT to Alexander St. • Places a substantial amount of traffic on the Access Road next to the “Transit Plaza”

34. The Proposed Transit Plaza

35. This is our Station and our Community’s Gateway In Pristine Original Historic Form & Function!!

36. Proposed Transit Plaza is “Shoe Horned” “Down the Hill” • Safety (Traffic & Pedestrian Conflicts) worse than now exists on Univ. Place • “Backing out” of “Wawa” parking now on both sides of 2-way lane • Permit Parking farther away

37. Conflicts in “Shoe Horned” Transit Plaza • VehicleConflicts • Pedestrian Conflicts • This is Fundamentally Unsafe

38. Other Safety Issues • Backing into 2-way Traffic is Unsafe • Kiss&Ride Now Requires Pedestrian Xings • Parked Buses Create Turn Visibility Issues • This is a Mess A&TP95

39. Short Term & Metered Parking a Substantially Longer Walk

40. ADA “Platform” Accessibility • Proposed Range: 305’ - 365 ’ • Not 180’ - 365 ’ • Comparable to Existing Proposed Plan – Range 305’ – 365’

41. This is our Station and our Community’s Gateway In Pristine Original Historic Form & Function!!

42. I Urge the Planning Board to… • Request that Nassau Hall voluntarily withdraw its Site Planand, post-haste, resubmit a Site Plan that does not move the Dinky terminus • Then, praise for the Arts Campus will not be plagued by the negative safety, mobility, environmental and historic preservation consequences of the dislocation of the station.

43. Thank You