The hearing for the controversial Route 92 project is still a month away, but officials at the Army Corps of Engineers and NJ Turnpike already seem anxious to approve the new highway. While the project’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is supposed to give equal weight to a number of congestion relief measures, it starts by assuming that the creation of an "alternative travel route" for through-traffic is the purpose of the project.

This is akin to stating, "We want to build a road," and then making the various options answer the questions: "What and where should we build?"

By defining the project’s purpose narrowly, the Turnpike Authority and Army Corps are trying to skirt the federal Clean Water Act and state regulation. Because Route 92 would destroy wetlands, these laws require proof that that no "practicable alternatives" exist to the new road. However, if the purpose of the project is defined as building a new road, it’s harder to identify alternatives. In 1998, the Turnpike Authority tried to change its project purpose after the EPA ruled that other alternatives exist. The Tri-State Campaign and others have repeatedly urged a broader purpose and need for the project, and in 1998 asked the agency to "set the record straight" on the real purpose of the project. If it’s to reduce local congestion, then an "alternative travel route" for through traffic is beside the point. If it’s to address regional traffic, then a number of other policy, project and operational changes could also be considered.

In this round, the Army Corps asserts that regional traffic is the problem and claims a new highway will reduce local congestion by diverting regional traffic bound for the NJ Turnpike. But only 16 percent of current traffic on local roads is through-traffic, and this number will rise only 9 percent by design-year 2028, according to the DEIS itself. The area’s real source of congestion – low-density development that is expected to house an additional 87,000 jobs by 2028 – goes unaddressed. Even as the agency promises to work with state agencies and communities to ensure Route 92 is not overrun by unplanned sprawl, it acknowledges that, "proposed Route 92 might accelerate zoned development near its interchanges." In other words, Rt. 92 will undoubtedly create more sprawl. We expect many citizens will point to this problem at the upcoming hearings in Princeton on May 20^th.v