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

2. 2

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

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

5. At-grade Access 2 Lot 7 Below-grade Access 2 Lot 7 Pedestrian Access Build all of Arts Campus Access Lot 7 Create Pedestrian Access Reduce Traffic Conflicts Build all of Arts Campus Access Lot 7 Create Pedestrian Access Reduce Traffic Conflicts 5 Below-grade access: Very feasible because Garages 82Ceiling Constraint South Entrance North Entrance A&TP3 C-400

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

7. According to NJ Transit*: 7 Also Grade Crossings arent Rare Also Grade Crossings arent Rare *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 8 A&TP1

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

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

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

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

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

14. Why the University agreed to the Easement 14

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

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

17. Google Earth with Property Boundaries 17

18. Project Site w Easement Boundary 18 C-101

19. As Proposed Construction within easement for public transportation within easement for public transportation 19 Question: Doesnt 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) Question: Doesnt 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) A&TP1 C-205

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

21. Google Earth with Property Boundaries 21

22. Google Earth with Borough Property Boundaries Highlighted 22

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

24. Traffic Impacts 24

25. The Roundabout 25

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

27. Many Conflicts in Tight Traffic Circle Bicycle Conflicts Vehicle Conflicts Pedestrian Conflicts This is a Mess 27 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 28 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 29 A&TP10

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

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

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

33. Traffic Study Does NOT allow the University to 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 33

34. The Proposed Transit Plaza 34

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

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 36

37. Conflicts in Shoe Horned Transit Plaza Vehicle Conflicts Pedestrian Conflicts This is Fundamentally Unsafe 37

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 38 A&TP95

39. Short Term & Metered Parking a Substantially Longer Walk 39

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

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

42. I Urge the Planning Board to… Request that Nassau Hall voluntarily withdraw its Site Plan and, 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. 42

43. Thank You 43