Turnpike Director Ed Gross told Trenton Times last week the study was a waste of time as the Authority had already studied all possible effects on the surrounding area, all possible alignments and all possible alternatives.

But the Army Corps' five-page record-of-decision on the Rte. 92 application argues differently. Crediting most of the arguments made by the Campaign and other Route 92 critics, the Corps made it clear that the Turnpike Authority had not studied the impacts of Rt. 92 on Somerset County and that the scope of interest in the project has expanded beyond the communities within the right-of-way or the path of potential alternative alignments to encompass outlying communities such as Kingston, Princeton and Rocky Hill "which would likely experience direct and secondary impacts from the new roadway." Furthermore, the Corps concluded previous studies had not taken into account new east-west linkages that have been built since Route 92 studies began in the 1980s.

The Corps said that communities such as Kingston, Bellemead and Rocky Hill are concerned that "truck traffic would use Rt. 92 and local roadways to access Roue 206 as a 'shortcut' to Interstate 287, as opposed to utilizing the direct connection [from the Turnpike to I-287] at Exit 10 of the New Jersey Turnpike. This concern should be considered and does not appear to have been sufficiently addressed to date..Although the mileage of the Route 92 roadway itself has been reduced, its construction would still result in direct and secondary impacts to areas between Route 1 and Route 206." In short, traffic would literally be funneled into Somerset County at the proposed highway's illogical terminus at Rt. 1.

The Corps also noted that the Hightstown Bypass "already provides an east-west transportation corridor south of proposed Route 92," and that "a second east-west roadway corridor has recently been completed...Middlesex County Route 522, which links Route 1 north of the proposed route 92 with Route 130...these two roadways provide current, toll-free means of east-west access between route 1 and the vicinity of the New Jersey Turnpike at Exits 8 and 8A...it is reasonable to believe that a portion of the originally-perceived need for Route 92 is currently satisfied by these roadways." Given the existence of these two links, the 'modified no-build alternative' suggested by USEPA should serve.

The Corps further cited the high level of controversy that continues to be associated with the highway proposal. The decision noted that the March 29, 1999 hearing was attended by several hundred individuals, and saw over 100 oral presentations, the majority of which opposed to the road (a similar outcry was heard at the June 1998 hearing). This total was among the highest ever recorded for an Army Corps (NY District) hearing in NJ. Despite the time lapse since the hearing, the Corps said that public interest in Rt. 92 remains at an "exceedingly high level." The Corps finally gave great weight to USEPA's and the US Fish and Wildlife Service's recommendation that the permit be denied.