Photo: League of American Bicylists

May is National Bike Month, and according to the 2010 American Community Survey, approximately 134,000 New Jersey commuters, or 3.4 percent of those who did not work from home, commuted by walking or biking to the office.  This percentage is unchanged from 2000.

• The total masks a divergence in the trends – a decline (-2.7 percent) in the number of commuters walking to work, contrasted with a big spike (+72.5 percent) in the number of bike commuters, albeit starting from a very small base.

• The walk/bike commuter percentage is much higher in communities that feature more compact, mixed-use downtowns, such as Flemington, Harrison, New Brunswick and Princeton Borough, each of which had commuter walk/bike percentages greater than 15%.

• According to the Active Living Network, 43% of people with safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home meet recommended activity levels, while just 27% of those without safe places to walk are active enough.

New Jersey Municipalities and NJDOT Are Addressing the Growing Demand

Following the lead of Montclair and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, more than 25 municipalities and three counties (Monmouth, Mercer and Essex) have adopted Complete Streets policies, and most of them have posted their policies online. These policies usually focus on such actions as considering the provision of bicycle and pedestrian ways along all new and reconstructed roads up to a certain cost maximum; recommending that transportation planning take into consideration linkages among various modes – for example, between transit and walking or cycling – and recommending all future transportation “infrastructure,” such as signals, crossings, signage, street furniture and transit facilities, to be planned with the needs of all transportation users in mind. Considering the needs of all users when designing, building or repairing a street may help encourage additional commuters to bike or walk to work, or make them more willing to walk or bike to transit instead of driving. Recognizing the need for additional education, the Department of Transportation has been hosting regional workshops to highlight the benefits of complete streets and encourage additional municipalities and counties to adopt policies.  

These are positive developments, and studies show the idea of Complete Streets enjoys wide public support. Recent studies have demonstrated that younger Americans are driving less, creating more consumer demand for walkable communities. According to a 2011 Monmouth University poll, New Jersey residents would like to see more communities where a variety of transportation options exist and neighborhoods are within walking distance of shopping and other services. Two-thirds of New Jersey residents feel the state needs more of these communities and nearly three in four residents say they would definitely (46 percent) or probably (27 percent) want to live in such a community.

Bike- and Walk-Friendly Communities Benefit Everyone

The benefits of walk- and bike-friendly communities are numerous; allowing people to bike and walk to their daily destinations has a positive impact on economic development, the environment and people’s health. In partnership with Shaping NJ, New Jersey Future has been promoting the concepts of healthy community design as one strategy to begin to reverse the obesity epidemic.

According to a 2011 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers found that adults who move to a denser, mixed-use neighborhood increase their levels of walking for both recreation and transportation, decrease their automobile travel, and increase their use of public transportation.

These data provide good reason to celebrate May as National Bike Month, and there are many great community events planned here in New Jersey. Consider biking or walking to work during Bike to Work Week (May14-18). If unsafe streets make that impossible, consider working with your local municipality to pass and implement a Complete Streets policy. Finally, enjoy the opportunity to ride on the weekends in one of the many places in the Garden State that encourage recreational cycling.

The report profiles the use of “noncontiguous clustering” ordinances by nine municipalities, and highlights success stories in four of these communities, where landowners and developers have taken advantage of the option to build more compactly on some sites, while preserving farmland and open space on others. 

Farmland in N. Hanover. Photo: Nicole Heater

Horse farm in Delaware Township. Photo: Nicole Heater

Single-family units and detention basin at Hillsborough Chase. Photo: Nicole Heater

Featherbed Lane in the MRC District near the Sourland Mountain trail system in Hopewell. Photo: Nicole Heater

Rural Conservation zone adjacent to Jenkins Sound in Middle Township. Photo: Nicole Heater

Skeba farm in Monroe, permanently preserved. Photo: Nicole Heater

Mixed-use retail and residential units on North Commerce Square in Robbinsville. Photo: Nicole Heater

McCormack Lake, located in the Plainsboro Preserve. Photo: Nicole Heater

 “The case studies give the details of effective master plans and ordinances, and also show readers the landscapes and land uses that many of the townships seek to preserve,” explains co-author Nicole Heater, who traveled throughout New Jersey photographing the physical character of the townships and the built projects that utilized noncontiguous cluster. “When authorized as a development option, the tool can collectively benefit landowners, developers and municipalities,” Heater continued.

Co-author Chris Sturm added, “The report demonstrates that noncontiguous clustering has tremendous potential for municipalities seeking to preserve land and strengthen neighborhoods on a tight budget. We are delighted to share how nine communities have used this clever approach.”

However, she added, “In the 16 years since the noncontiguous clustering tool has been available, only four projects have been completed.” She noted that New Jersey Future has been working with colleague organizations to make noncontiguous clustering an easier to use and more powerful planning tool, and will be pursuing amendments to the planning statute.

The report focuses on the nine townships that have adopted noncontiguous clustering ordinances: Delaware, Hillsborough, Hopewell (Mercer County), Middle, Monroe, North Hanover, Ocean, Plainsboro and Robbinsville.  Each case study includes photographs capturing the character of the natural and built environment; a map of the project area or municipality; and a summary of the key features of the master plan, ordinance(s) and implementing projects, if available, with links to supporting documents.

Download: Preserving Land through Compact Growth: Case Studies of Noncontiguous Clustering in New Jersey (PDF)

Instead, Office of Planning Advocacy Executive Director Gerry Scharfenberger announced that an additional public hearing would be scheduled on the draft State Strategic Plan.  This will push plan adoption off until early July or later, since the public hearing must be preceded by a 30-day public notice period and followed by a 30-day public comment period. 

Scharfenberger explained that the administration remains fully committed to the State Strategic plan but wants to proceed cautiously to ensure that the final product is the best possible plan. 

New Jersey Future is urging that the public hearing be scheduled promptly, and that the State Planning Commission meet as soon as possible after the 30-day public comment period to vote on the plan itself.

Source: Flickr user -luz-

The following was co-authored with assistance from New Jersey Future intern Christopher Cavaiola.
 

Camden County’s proposed Future Wastewater Service Area map was posted for public notice  in the New Jersey Register on April 16, and on the DEP Watershed Management website yesterday, making Camden the first full county to near adoption of an updated sewer service area under the 2008 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) rule. (For more information, see our Camden County Fact Sheet.)

This milestone matters because Camden’s sewer service areas (SSAs) delineate where sewers are in the ground or can be built, which in turn largely dictates where development occurs.  (Outside the SSAs, reliance on septic systems allows only low-density development.) 

The update meets a primary requirement of the DEP’s 2008 WQMP rule that seeks to protect water quality.  In addition to requiring the sewer service areas to exclude large environmentally sensitive areas, the rule limits development intensity to what sewer treatment plants and natural systems can handle.  However, implementing all of the rule provisions has been difficult and controversial, and progress has been slow.  This past winter, the Gov. Christie signed legislation that required submission of the SSA updates within 180 days, but provided a two-year deadline extension for most other requirements.

Camden County’s proposed sewer service areas cover 86,212 acres, or 60% of the county’s land area. The proposed area is 14,021 acres smaller than the county’s pre-existing SSAs; environmentally sensitive areas along river and stream corridors, contiguous freshwater wetlands, upland forest habitat and an area containing the headwaters of the Great Egg Harbor River have all been removed, as have some areas based on local planning initiatives; other areas have been added based on local planning initiatives. The proposal is subject to public comment and review.    

New Jersey Future has been following the wastewater planning process closely because of its impact on where and how growth occurs.  The SSA updates will likely affect where state government directs development incentives, since it is expected that the State Strategic Plan will include access to sewer service as one of the essential criteria for identifying growth areas.     

New Jersey Future is preparing a fact sheet on each county’s proposed Future Wastewater Service Area that will include links to the public notice (with information on the rule requirements and the public comment process) and to a map of the proposed SSA, a general description of the proposed SSA, future anticipated wastewater planning activities, and contacts for more information.

Several other counties and a handful of municipalities have submitted proposed Future Wastewater Service Areas to comply with the 2008 WQMP rule that are expected to be publicly noticed in the New Jersey Register shortly.   Updates in other jurisdictions, including Monmouth County, parts of Essex and Union counties (the Joint Meeting of Essex and Union), and parts of Bergen County, are proceeding under the 1989 WQMP rule.   A proposal for Ridgewood, Bergen County, has been approved as compliant with the 2008 rule; a proposal for Washington Township, Morris County, can be found on the DEP Watershed Management website.   

Newark: Not a City. Photo courtesy of photohome.com

Updated below.

When is a city not necessarily a city?  When Wendell Cox is writing the definitions.  In a recent article on the website New Geography, Cox resorts to some creative use of Census geography in an attempt to refute a growing body of evidence that urban areas are making a comeback.

The recent phenomenon of people (and businesses, and retail, and the developers who build for them) returning to places whose built environments provide a range of housing types and are designed to enable multiple transportation options – places including, but not limited to, the country’s biggest cities – has been well documented.  Part of it is demographics – specifically the fact that the current generation of 20-somethings simply doesn’t want what the Baby Boomers did, and that employers are having to respond accordingly.

Also well documented is the fact that far-flung “exurban” (a term without any official definition, by the way) developments have been the hardest-hit places in the current recession and may not rebound any time soon. 

Some of New Jersey Future’s own research reinforces these points; finding, for example, that building permit activity in older, built-out towns hasn’t fallen off as dramatically as it has in sprawling suburbs, and that transit-accessible towns have generally been more recession-resistant.

Plenty of smaller cities, towns, and older “streetcar” suburbs offer many of the same advantages of the big cities in terms of affordability and accessibility: a variety of housing types (including single-family homes on smaller lots) affordable to a range of incomes; shops and entertainment within walking distance; accessibility to public transportation; and grid-like street networks that facilitate shorter local car trips not requiring use of the regional road network.  And many such places are indeed gaining population, some for the first time in decades.

Some urban commentators, Wendell Cox and Joel Kotkin among them, apparently find this phenomenon threatening and are attempting to muddy the waters.  The “problem” for them (and this is only a problem if you’re seeking to discredit the notion that there might be people out there who don’t want to live in spread-out, single-use, cul-de-sac suburbia) is that people moving back into denser, downtown-style small towns and older suburbs supports the idea of a return to a pre-Interstate Highway-era settlement pattern.  What is a sprawl apologist to do? 

One option is to pretend to misunderstand the point by concentrating on the fact that suburbs and exurbs are still growing faster than cities.  This is generally true, but it does not in itself refute the thesis that urban areas are nonetheless experiencing a kind of renaissance.  The yardstick by which the recent performance of older urban areas is so remarkable is in comparison to these same areas’ performance in prior decades, not in comparison to suburban growth (however you define it – see below).

But another tactic is even simpler: Why not just tally some of those newly revitalizing smaller urban areas in the column that supports your pro-sprawl argument, rather than in the column that undermines it?  You can do this by defining “suburb and exurb” so broadly that it includes everything but the biggest cities.  By doing so, you are effectively taking data that contradicts your preferred narrative and using it instead to bolster that narrative.  That’s what Joel Kotkin has been doing, and it’s what Wendell Cox is doing in this more recent New Geography article.  Cox’s concept of a “suburb” is even more inclusive than Kotkin’s, capturing not just Jersey City (among others) but Newark, New Jersey’s largest city.

As with Kotkin, Cox’s sleight of hand lies in the selective use of Census Bureau geography to construct a definition of “suburb” that meets his narrative needs.  Cox defines “core counties” (the only counties he tallies in the “urban” column) as the counties that contain their metropolitan areas’ largest cities; “suburban” counties as those counties classified by the Census Bureau as “central” counties (pdf) of their metro areas (see, in particular, page 37250 for a discussion of “central counties”) but not containing the metro area’s largest city; and “exurban” counties as those that are part of a metro area but are not one of the central counties. 

These definitions may initially seem defensible, but their application in New Jersey will very quickly illustrate how flawed they are.  In particular, consider that 16 of New Jersey’s 21 counties are part of either the New York or Philadelphia metropolitan areas.  Because both of those biggest-in-their-metro-area cities (and the counties that comprise them) are located in other states, there is no way for any of the New Jersey counties that are contained in their respective metro areas to be classified as “core” counties in Cox’s typology, no matter how palpably urban some of their constituent cities and towns (e.g., Newark, Jersey City, Elizabeth, Paterson, Camden) may be.

Here is how Cox’s classification plays out for the metropolitan areas that contain at least one New Jersey county:

For the New York City metro area:

Core counties: the 5 boroughs of New York (each of which constitutes its own county)
Suburban counties:  Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties in New York; Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, Union, Morris, Middlesex, Somerset, Hunterdon, Monmouth, and Ocean counties in New Jersey
Exurban counties:  Sussex County, New Jersey; Pike County, Pennsylvania

For the Philadelphia metro area:

Core county:  Philadelphia County (coextensive with the city of Philadelphia)
Suburban counties:  Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties in Pennsylvania;  Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Salem counties in New Jersey;  New Castle County, Delaware;  and Cecil County, Maryland
Exurban counties:  none

In addition, we have the following New Jersey counties making up parts of smaller metro areas:

Atlantic – core (and only) county of the Atlantic City-Hammonton metro area
Cape May – core (and only) county of the Ocean City metro area
Cumberland – core (and only) county of the Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton metro area
Mercer – core (and only) county of the Trenton-Ewing metro area
Warren – suburban county of the Allentown-Bethlehem PA-NJ metro area

Tallying up all of New Jersey’s 21 counties, we find that, using Cox’s terminology, New Jersey is composed of:

Four “core” counties:  Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Mercer
16 “suburban” counties:  Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, Union, Morris, Middlesex, Somerset, Hunterdon, Monmouth, Ocean, Warren, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Salem
One “exurban” county:  Sussex

That’s right – Cumberland (2010 population density = 317 people / sq. mi.) and Cape May (440 / sq. mi.) counties are “core” counties, while Hudson (16,070 / sq. mi.) and Essex (6,138 / sq. mi.) are “suburban.”  If this sounds right to you, then you are likely to find the rest of Wendell Cox’s argument persuasive.

Consider, also, this list of projects that have been recipients of a New Jersey Future Smart Growth Award over the last 10 years:

• The South Waterfront project in Hoboken
• Eleven80, the conversion of an office building in downtown Newark into luxury apartments
• Lafayette Gardens, the conversion of a public housing project and a former industrial site into a mixed-income neighborhood in Jersey City
• Harrison’s plan to transform its disused industrial waterfront into a transit-oriented mixed-use neighborhood
• The redevelopment of the former Military Ocean Terminal in Bayonne
• The mixed-use Heldrich redevelopment project in New Brunswick
• The conversion to apartments of the RCA Victor building in Camden
• The construction of a mixed-use condominium project on a former lumber yard next to the PATCO transit station in Collingswood
• Wesmont Station, a new development (featuring a new train station) to be built on the site of an old airplane factory in Wood-Ridge
• The construction of new apartments and retail, including a food market, on two surface parking lots in Princeton
• Park Square, a mixed-use apartment complex on former surface parking lots in downtown Rahway
• The conversion into residential, retail, and office space of an old department store in downtown Morristown
• Gaslight Commons, a transit-oriented development in South Orange
• A plan for a new neighborhood on an abandoned landfill site in downtown Somerville
• More than 100 acres of redevelopment and infill development in downtown Metuchen
• Cranford Crossing, the largest redevelopment project undertaken in downtown Cranford in a century

At New Jersey Future, we consider all of these projects to be laudable examples of redevelopment in already-urbanized, pedestrian-friendly, and often transit-supportive areas.  But by Cox’s definitions, the population growth engendered by these projects would all be tallied in the “suburban growth” column, because all of these host municipalities – despite their high population densities, as noted below, and built-out development footprints – are located in “suburban” counties:

• Hoboken (one of the most densely-populated municipalities in the country) – 39,776 people / sq. mi.
• Jersey City (total 2010 population of 247,597) – 16,730 people / sq. mi.
• Newark (New Jersey’s largest city, with a 2010 population of 277,140) – 11,413 people / sq. mi.
• Harrison – 11,121 / sq. mi.
• Bayonne – 10,833 / sq. mi.
• New Brunswick – 10,257 / sq. mi.
• Camden – 8,248 / sq. mi.
• Collingswood – 7,131 / sq. mi.
• Wood-Ridge – 6,966 / sq. mi.
• Princeton – 6,802 / sq. mi.
• Rahway – 6,713 / sq. mi.
• Morristown – 6,070 / sq. mi.
• South Orange – 5,662 / sq. mi.
• Somerville – 5,127 / sq. mi.
• Metuchen – 4,869 / sq. mi.
• Cranford – 4,612 / sq. mi.

For purposes of comparison, the overall 2010 population density of New Jersey – the most densely populated state in the nation – is 1,171 people per square mile.

As real estate expert Chris Leinberger states, the old “city vs. suburb” model is outdated; the real distinction is between “walkable urbanism” (which can be found throughout many older metropolitan areas, not just in the principal city) and “drivable sub-urbanism.”  Cox’s oversimplified, county-based typology is too coarse to capture the difference.  In fact, it’s likely to lead to conclusions that are the 180-degree opposite of what’s actually happening.

UPDATE: There has been a lot of Twitter activity about this article, including this from Twitter user Market Urbanism, to which Tim Evans responds in the comments below:

We get it – Wendell Cox's data on urban, suburban & exurban demographics is not ideal. Do you have a better dataset? http://t.co/iWAWpILc

April 28, 2012 4:15 pm via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

@MarketUrbanism

Market Urbanism

• New Jersey is the first state in the nation to have a comprehensive sustainability program that supports community efforts to reduce waste, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve environmental equity.

• 359 municipalities are registered and working toward Sustainable Jersey certification.  This represents more than 60 percent of the state’s 566 municipalities. Notably, nearly 75 percent of New Jersey’s population lives in registered/certified Sustainable Jersey communities.

• 108 municipalities are certified, including 99 towns at the bronze level and nine towns at the silver level: Berkeley Heights, Bernards, Cape May, Cherry Hill, Galloway, Jersey City, Summit, West Windsor and Woodbridge.

Voluntary Program Offers Guidance for ‘Green Legacy’ Actions

Sustainable Jersey is a voluntary program for municipalities in New Jersey that supports community efforts to reduce waste, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve environmental equity. It provides state and private financial incentives and a full range of technical support, training and tools to empower communities to create a positive legacy for future generations.

To achieve certification, municipalities must complete a certain number of voluntary actions, choosing from more than 60 actions within 16 categories. Actions can range from devising strategies to make farmers’ markets  more accessible to enacting a Complete Streets policy to conducting an energy audit of municipal facilities.

The technical content of the program’s actions was developed with the help of 22 task forces comprising state and local officials, nonprofit groups, experts and members of the business community.  Recognizing that the power to plan and zone for development is largely in the hands of municipalities, Sustainable Jersey provides resources, including guidance, tools and sample resolutions, to help encourage sound land-use decision-making.  New Jersey Future helped draft and refine several of the actions within the Land Use and Transportation section.

The Sustainable Jersey certification program was launched in February 2009 as a collaborative effort among the New Jersey State League of Municipalities’ Mayors’ Committee for a Green Future, Rutgers University and the Municipal Land Use Center at The College of New Jersey, in partnership with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.  In 2011, Sustainable Jersey evolved from a partnership into a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Most New Jerseyans Want Sustainable Communities

According to a 2011 Monmouth University poll, New Jersey residents think preservation of critical resources like drinking water is just as important as economic growth.  They would also like to see more communities where a variety of transportation options besides cars is available and neighborhoods are within walking distance of shopping and other services – in other words, they’re interested in building sustainable communities. Two-thirds of New Jersey residents feel the state needs more of these communities and nearly three in four residents say they would definitely (46 percent) or probably (27 percent) want to live in such a community. A majority believe such communities will make it easier to get around (72 percent) and will promote economic growth (71 percent).

With this clear support in mind, a community that’s interested in participating in the Sustainable Jersey program can take the first step by forming a Green Team.  Members of the Green Team leverage their skills and expertise to help develop plans, implement programs and assist with educational opportunities that support the creation of a sustainable community. Such entities can go by any name, but the role is the same: lead and coordinate the sustainability activities of the community. Sustainable Jersey certification requires that the Green Team be established by a resolution or ordinance that is adopted by the municipal governing body.  

New Jersey Future will continue to partner on this important initiative, providing technical assistance and guidance on the land-use and transportation actions. As we approach Earth Day, please consider getting involved in your own community by joining a Green Team, or encouraging your municipality to take actions toward increased sustainability. You can learn more at the Sustainable Jersey website.

Photo: Ideal Image Consulting

An innovative zoning code in a small town, a wide-ranging multi-jurisdiction open-space and historic-asset preservation feasibility study, a dramatic repurposing of a distressed suburban shopping center and a mixed-use brownfield redevelopment project are among the seven 2012 winners of New Jersey Future’s Smart Growth Awards. (Full list.)

In addition, the Cary Edwards Leadership Award will be presented to Joseph M. Taylor, chairman and chief executive officer of Panasonic Corporation of North America. In April 2011, Mr. Taylor announced that Panasonic would construct a new North American headquarters on the riverfront near Newark Penn Station. 

“All of this year’s entrants are to be commended on pursuing the vision of smarter growth and redevelopment, even in a very trying economic environment,” said New Jersey Future Executive Director Peter Kasabach. “The winners exemplify the very best of smart-growth principles, from fostering development near transit to preserving our precious historic and open-space resources to working collaboratively with public and private stakeholders to bring about fairer and more efficient land uses. We are honored at their participation in this awards program and we look forward to celebrating their work.

“We are also pleased to be able to honor Joseph Taylor for the significant investment he and Panasonic are making in the ongoing revitalization of Newark,” Kasabach continued. “His decision now to bring his company to Newark will provide lasting benefits to Panasonic, to its employees and to the city, and we are proud to recognize his vision with this award.”

The Smart Growth Award-winners also drew praise from New Jersey Future trustee and senior fellow Ingrid Reed, who chaired the selection committee. “The committee was pleased to see a broad diversity of approaches to addressing local needs and opportunities through smart-growth strategies,” Reed said. “Yet all exhibited the same goal: to foster responsible development that creates vibrant places to live, work, study and enjoy. This year’s winners provide examples that can be emulated by communities around the state and, indeed, around the country.”

The winners will receive their awards at a gala ceremony at the Newark Club in Newark on June 7, from 5:30 to 8:00 pm.

2012 New Jersey Future Smart Growth Award Winners

Shopping Center Transformation
Cooper Towne Center, Somerdale
Alberto & Associates, Borough of Somerdale, National Realty Development

Transit-Oriented Development Partnership
Gateway Transit Village, New Brunswick
New Brunswick Development Corporation, New Brunswick Parking Authority, New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Pennrose Properties

Innovative Participatory Plan
Hammonton Form-Based Code
Brown & Keener, a division of RBA, Main Street Hammonton, Municipal Land Use Center at The College of New Jersey, Town of Hammonton

Mixed-Use Brownfield Redevelopment
Harrison Commons
Ironstate Development, Minno & Wasko Architects and Planners, The Pegasus Group

University-Neighborhood Center Revitalization
McGinley Square Redevelopment Plan, Jersey City
Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, St. Peter’s University, Trinity Choice Communities

Inter-Municipal Open Space Preservation
Morris Canal Greenway Feasibility Study, Passaic County
Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, Canal Society of New Jersey, County of Passaic, Louis Berger Group

Infill Strategies for Adaptive Re-Use
Newark Neighborhood Housing
City of Newark, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, RPM Development Group

Cary Edwards Leadership Award
Joseph M. Taylor
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Panasonic Corporation of North America 

About the Selection Committee
The New Jersey Future Smart Growth Award-winners are selected by an independent jury. Serving on this year’s selection committee were: Chairwoman Ingrid Reed, New Jersey Future trustee and senior fellow; and members Tom Clarke, executive director, CityWorks; Andy Davis, vice president and general counsel, PS&S and New Jersey Future trustee; Anastasia Harrison, AIA, LEED-AP, director of sustainability, Gensler and chair, U.S. Green Building Council-NJ; Jason Kasler, AICP, PP, executive director, New Jersey Planning Officials; Marie Raffay, councilwoman, Byram Township; Jay Watson, vice president, D&R Greenway Land Trust; and Kevin Wilkes AIA, principal, Princeton Design Guild and councilman, Princeton Borough.

A NJ Transit dual-mode locomotive. Source: flickr user PhillipC

An April 12 article in the Record of Bergen County makes it sound as though NJ Transit’s decision to purchase 26 new dual-mode (diesel-electric) locomotives was only made because the now-scuttled ARC Tunnel project required it, and that the project’s cancellation renders the locomotives superfluous. In fact the acquisition of the new locomotives should be regarded as an action independent of the ARC Tunnel decision, one that will still provide clear benefits. 

Riders on the non-electrified NJ Transit commuter rail lines – the Raritan Valley, the Pascack Valley, the Main/Bergen lines, the Montclair-Boonton line beyond Montclair State University, and the North Jersey Coast Line beyond Long Branch – do not currently have a one-seat ride to New York Penn Station because diesel locomotives aren’t allowed in the existing trans-Hudson tunnel for ventilation reasons.  However, the introduction of dual-mode locomotives can still enable some of these riders – specifically on the Raritan Valley, Montclair-Boonton, and Coast Line – to gain a one-seat ride to New York Penn Station through the existing tunnel. It would require no more than some adjustments to the schedules on those lines and on the Northeast Corridor line (into which the other lines tie prior to entering the tunnel).

Neither a new tunnel nor the new dual-mode locomotives would presently be sufficient to give a one-seat ride to the Pascack Valley and Main/Bergen lines, however – those lines also need a new connector track in Secaucus to patch into the Northeast Corridor. But this Secaucus connection, like the introduction of dual-mode locomotives, could be done independently of the ARC Tunnel and could still give those riders a one-seat ride, under schedule adjustments as noted above. 

Whether the existing tunnel could handle the additional demand for rail ridership that might be generated by the convenience of a one-seat ride is a legitimate question that will still need to be addressed.  From a technological standpoint, however, none of the new one-seat rides is contingent upon the construction of a new tunnel; the technology and physical connectivity improvements that enable new direct service are entirely separate from the capacity issue.  And while the ARC Tunnel’s cancellation certainly does affect capacity (trans-Hudson capacity constraints were, after all, the whole reason for proposing the new tunnel in the first place), it should not be seen as precluding other service improvements.

To sum up in logical terms:

• Dual-mode locomotives are a necessary and sufficient condition (i.e., no need for the ARC Tunnel) to give a one-seat ride to riders on the Raritan Valley and the outer ends of the North Jersey Coast and Montclair-Boonton lines.
• Dual-mode locomotives are a necessary but not sufficient condition to give a one-seat ride to the Pascack Valley and Main/Bergen line riders – those riders would also need the Secaucus connecting track (but, again, not the new tunnel).
• The ARC Tunnel itself is neither necessary nor sufficient – and never has been – to give a one-seat ride to riders on any of the non-electrified lines.  They could all have a one-seat ride without it, via either the dual-mode locomotives alone or the dual-mode locomotives plus the Secaucus connection, and they would all still have needed those other improvements even if the new tunnel were built.
• The ARC Tunnel, or its equivalent, is necessary to increase significantly the number of trains and passengers moving between New Jersey and New York. 

Source: NJ Transit

The percent of New Jersey commuters (people not working at home) who ride transit to work increased between 2000 and 2010 — from 9.6 percent to 11.2 percent.

• While New Jersey’s total workforce has risen by 4.6 percent in this 10-year period, the number of transit commuters has increased by 20.9 percent.

• Nationally, New Jersey is second only to New York in the percentage of its commuters who ride transit.
   

Buses, Trains Gain in Popularity; Carpools Take a Back Seat 

According to the American Community Survey’s 2010 one-year estimates, the growth between 2000 and 2010 in the number of transit commuters in New Jersey was roughly similar for bus (+21.8 percent) and rail (+17.9 percent). Bus commuters increased from 5.7 percent of all commuters in 2000 to 6.6 percent in 2010, while rail commuters increased their share of total commuters from 3.9 percent to 4.4 percent.

New York widened its lead over New Jersey, increasing its transit mode share from 24.3 percent to 27.8 percent — an increase of 3.5 percentage points, compared to 1.6 percentage points for New Jersey.  But New Jersey, in turn, widened its lead over third-place Massachusetts, which increased its transit mode share by only 0.7 percentage points, from 8.8 percent in 2000 to 9.5 percent in 2010.

Interestingly, looking only at bus riders, New Jersey trails New York by a scant 1/10^th of 1 percent (6.6 percent vs. 6.7 percent), and both states are bested by Hawaii, where 6.9 percent of commuters rode the bus in 2010.

The percent of commuters carpooling dropped in every single state between 2000 and 2010. Nationally, the carpooling rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points, from 12.6 percent to 10.1 percent. New Jersey’s decrease of 2.1 percentage points was smaller than the national rate, although its carpool rate in 2010 was below the national average at 8.7 percent.

New Jersey was one of only four states where the percent of commuters driving alone did not increase between 2000 and 2010. The single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) commute percentage actually fell by 1.4 percentage points in New York, from 58.1 percent to 56.7 percent, while decreasing by negligibly small amounts in New Jersey (remaining at 75.1 percent), South Dakota and Massachusetts.  Nationally, the SOV percentage increased from 78.4 percent to 80.2 percent. New Jersey’s SOV commute percentage is fourth-lowest in the nation, after New York, Hawaii and Alaska.  (If you’re wondering why SOV percentages are so low in Hawaii and Alaska, they rank first and second, respectively, in carpooling.)
 

Walking Fails to Keep Pace; Full Speed Ahead for Biking 

The percent of people walking to work fell in New Jersey, from 3.2 percent in 2000 to 3.0 percent in 2010. The walking percent also fell nationally, and in 37 of the 50 states. Worse, the absolute number of people walking to work fell by 2.5 percent in New Jersey, while increasing by 1.0 percent nationally. The number of people walking also fell in 25 other states besides New Jersey.

Biking to work, on the other hand, was up almost everywhere. While still making up only a very small percentage of total commuters (0.6 percent nationally, up from 0.4 percent in 2000, and 0.4 percent in New Jersey, up from 0.2 percent), the bike mode share nevertheless increased in all but six states: Arizona, Delaware, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Mississippi and Louisiana.  What’s more, the absolute number of people biking to work was up almost 50 percent nationally and increased everywhere except New Hampshire, Mississippi, Delaware and Arkansas.

Encouragingly, the number of bike commuters increased by 72.5 percent in New Jersey between 2000 and 2010.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about these numbers is what they say about the strength of the transit network in New Jersey. Given that jobs within New Jersey have been decentralizing, a phenomenon that tends to work against both carpooling and transit, it is a testament to both the availability and the importance of buses and trains that the share of commuters who drive alone to work has not increased over the last decade.  Buses and trains remain the preferred mode for commuters into New York City, which is still a huge employer of New Jersey residents.  A renewed focus on the transit network by New Jersey state government, as represented by the Urban Transit Hub tax credit, should also enable more intra-New Jersey commuters to use transit in the future.  

State agencies can also do more to exploit the power of public transportation by thinking more strategically about what kinds of development to promote in which parts of the transit network.  New Jersey Future will soon release a research report focused on assets near transit hubs, intended to highlight where the greatest opportunities are; sign up here to be notified when the report is available.

A note on the source for these data: The American Community Survey replaces the Census’s long-form questionnaire, so these estimates are the first from 2010 that can be compared directly to the 2000 Census numbers. – T.E.

Proposed Revisions Can Ensure Balance and Effective Implementation

As an organization formed to promote and watchdog state planning, New Jersey Future has followed closely the development of the State Strategic Plan.  Today we submitted our comments to the State Planning Commission (pdf), which is scheduled to vote on a final plan on April 25.

“We commend the Christie administration for recognizing the premise of the 1986 New Jersey State Planning Act – that New Jersey can have both economic growth and a healthy environment by adopting a statewide plan with a sound vision for the future,” said New Jersey Future Executive Director Peter Kasabach. “ The draft State Strategic Plan and the supporting Executive Order 78 go a step further by setting in motion a process for state agencies to align their resources behind the plan’s goals — a critically important step toward ensuring that the plan will have a meaningful impact on how and where New Jersey grows.” 

However, Kasabach added, “While this approach has enormous potential, the State Strategic Plan requires several revisions to meet fully the requirements of the State Planning Act, and additional adjustments to ensure tangible improvements to our state. The Christie administration should demonstrate its commitment and jumpstart the plan’s implementation by moving ahead on a handful of complementary actions recommended in the comments.”

Kasabach concluded, “We in New Jersey have a great opportunity to use growth as a lever to improve our economy, environment and communities, but we need to be smart and strategic about how we do it.”