According to recent press reports, October 26 is d-day for Governor Whitman and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to decide whether or not to proceed with the NJ Turnpike Authority's proposed Route 92, a new highway in southern Middlesex County. Although the U.S. EPA has voiced strong objection to the project and has proposed set of modest traffic flow improvement alternatives to building a new highway, NJ can still make the decision to pave.

The issue is shaping up as a litmus test for Governor Christine Whitman's avowed intent to limit sprawl development and channel development into New Jersey's cities and towns. Although her administration seems slow on the uptake regarding the highway- sprawl dynamic, others in the state are not. A recent News 12 report squarely asked whether Whitman's backing for Route 92 belied her anti-sprawl message.

Other central New Jersey voices have also made the connection:

Home News Tribune (Sept. 21 editorial):

Sprawl is a disease that's hard to cure. The serious lack of planning that created car-dependent suburbs - with their strip malls, corporate campuses and office parks - draws more cars onto roads.

Courier News (Oct. 14 editorial):

There's a lot to dislike about this ill-planned pavement, apart from its direct effect on a Central Jersey ecosystem sitting atop two aquifers. The Turnpike says the purpose of Rte 92 is to relieve traffic on roads in the area. However, experience with similar projects indicates it is far more likely to increase traffic than relieve it, encouraging more suburban sprawl...

The Turnpike Authority's attempt to make its new toll road conform to the State Plan is laughable. The plan urges channeling development to established communities. The Authority argues that Route 92 would provide a vital link between Jamesburg at Turnpike Exit 8A and the Forrestal Center at Route 1. The Authority's own traffic studies show that only 2 percent of vehicle trips are between Jamesburg and the Forrestal Center. Nice try - which is how the Whitman Administration should rate this costly proposal to lay more pavement through precious open space."

Joseph Kowalski, Chair, Hopewell Mayor's Truck Traffic Task Force Oct. 13 letter to the Governor

...Route 92 would only shift, not alleviate, the traffic problems in our area. It is time for regional solutions. Route 92 is not one of them.

In addition to environmental land use degradation in the immediate area, I am concerned about the secondary truck traffic that Route 92 would bring to corridors like Route 518, 206, 31, 202, 78, and 287. Since Route 92 would terminate at Route 1, it would facilitate access for trucks seeking a 'free' trip north and west to the I-78/287 corridor and elsewhere, cutting through rural and suburban communities such as Kingston, Rocky Hill, Montgomery, and Hillsborough along the way.

Gov. Whitman, I urge you to hold your commitment to open space preservation and rural quality of life by taking a stand against Route 92. The EPA has provided a practicable way to do it. We should follow its lead.

If Route 92 is built, it will:

* Destroy 18.4 acres of environmentally-sensitive freshwater wetlands, 12.4 of which are forested, and would divide a 1600 acre tract of wetlands. The State Plan says environmentally sensitive areas are to be protected from development.

* Draw over 12,000 new vehicles from outside areas to the road each day. These vehicles will not be drawn by local growth, but by the very existence of Route 92. Route 92 would increase traffic, not relieve it.

* Put the New Jersey Turnpike in the red. According to the toll projections, Route 92 would engender a $258 million shortfall - its tolls will fail to cover the debt service on its construction. To make up for this shortfall, the Turnpike Authority would have to hike tolls on the entire Turnpike.