New Jersey’s first lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, will deliver the opening remarks at New Jersey Future’s annual Redevelopment Forum March 9. In addition to her position as lieutenant governor, Guadagno is also the secretary of state and leads the Christie administration’s efforts to streamline government and improve New Jersey’s economic vitality.

Her remarks will kick off the forum’s plenary session, at which the commissioners of three key state departments – the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Community Affairs – along with the acting executive director of the state’s Business Action Center will discuss how their departments will realign their programs and priorities in order to support the objectives of Gov. Christie’s State Strategic Plan, and especially how they will support redevelopment priorities in the Garden State.

More information on the Forum, including the agenda, session descriptions and speaker biographies, may be found on the forum website.

On Friday, the Christie administration released a proposal for a critical missing piece of its proposed State Strategic Plan, the system for determining where both growth and preservation should occur.

• The new Priority Investment Area Criteria would replace today’s State Development and Redevelopment Plan map with a system for indentifying “priority growth” and “priority preservation” areas.  Remaining land in the state would be characterized as “alternate growth” or “limited growth,” depending on the availability of infrastructure.

• Regional planning organizations and counties could recommend additions to priority growth and priority preservation areas, provided these areas meet additional requirements.  

• The system is meant to influence “state agency decisions on investments, incentives, and appropriate flexibility on state land use regulations, programs and operations.”  Local government would retain authority over planning and zoning decisions, but the system is intended to increase coordination among all levels of government.

Proposal Needs Testing and Refinement to Ensure Smart-Growth Outcomes

Much is at stake.  Today’s State Development and Redevelopment Plan map divides the state into five planning areas and centers, designations that state government uses to direct key incentives and regulations.  For example, developers with land outside of State Plan smart growth areas have no access to some economic development incentives, including the lucrative Economic Redevelopment Growth Grant (ERGG) program and the Board of Public Utilities’ energy efficiency programs.  State Plan map designations determine the development intensity for every parcel in the coastal zone; statewide they prescribe where development permits can be extended beyond their normal lifetime.  Many local governments use the State Plan map to guide master plan and zoning designations, and to defend those plans in court.  The map also provides a blueprint for more efficient infrastructure investments.  It should not be discarded until we understand how, and how well, its replacement will function.

In thinking about how to evaluate the proposed investment criteria that would replace State Plan map designations, New Jersey Future offers a few basic tests:

• Will the criteria advance the goals of the State Strategic Plan?  Will the criteria strategically identify the most promising opportunities to create high-quality places that will attract and retain people, employment and investment?  The system should not allow state incentive funds to be diluted across even broader areas than under today’s system of “smart growth areas” as mapped by the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.  Unfortunately, the state has not yet tested the system to provide the answer to this question.  Will the criteria strategically identify the most important areas for preservation?  It’s impossible to say at this point, since the criteria are so extremely vague and no mechanism is suggested for sorting out the inevitable conflicts between preservation and growth areas.  Moreover, it seems as if local governments can override state-level recognition of priority preservation areas, which would render these designations hostage to sometimes parochial municipal preferences.

• Will the criteria meet the requirements of the State Planning Act?  Will they “discourage development where it may impair or destroy natural resources or environmental qualities?”  The system would allow land to be designated as a priority for growth without an evaluation of environmental conditions.  Additionally, it’s not clear whether the system would promote growth outside of areas that have, or are planned for, infrastructure. The language regarding wastewater infrastructure doesn’t distinguish between the Sewer Service Areas being updated this summer and the existing ones described by DEP Commissioner Martin as, “in many cases obsolete,” that include 250,000 environmentally sensitive acres in need of protection.  

•  Will the system work as intended?  The 2001 State Development and Redevelopment Plan map provided clarity about the plan’s geography, but for a variety of reasons proved extremely difficult to update. It’s not clear whether the proposed criteria system will produce growth and preservation areas that make sense, and it’s not clear whether the delineation process will be transparent, predictable and efficient.  

The release of the criteria was timed to coincide with the public comment period for the State Strategic Plan, which commences tonight with the first of six public hearings, followed by a 30-day window for written comments.  They are presented as an “Advance Notice Rules,” paving the way for publication in the New Jersey Register.

In general, the proposed framework of priority areas for growth and for preservation makes sense.  It mirrors the way the current State Plan’s “smart growth areas” have been used to direct state investment and protect resources.  But much work remains.  The criteria must be tightened up and clarified to address basic policy questions.  Then the system should be tested in a handful of diverse locations (rural, suburban urban).  What kinds of growth areas and preservation areas, in what locations, will it produce?  If the Christie administration and its decision-making agency, the State Planning Commission, intend to provide a workable, strategic framework for growth and preservation that is consistent with the mandates in the State Planning Act, it must give its staff ample time and resources to develop the system fully, and it must provide the public meaningful opportunity for review and comment, rather than simply rushing to meet an arbitrary deadline.  

We won’t be tweeting, but you may contribute your comments via Twitter simply by adding the hashtag #ssphearing to your tweets. We’ll be glad to include them in the liveblog.

Light Rail in Newark. Source: FTA

There is ample evidence that walking, biking and riding mass transit have lower environmental impacts than driving does, and provide health benefits to those who use those forms of transportation. Even though NJ Transit has been widening seats, studies show that those who use mass transit to commute receive their recommended daily allowance of exercise. Researchers in New York have demonstrated that commuting by public transportation rather than by car increased individual energy output by the equivalent of one pound of body fat per six weeks. At the same time, recent surveys have demonstrated a clear market demand for more walkable places and greater access to transit. In fact, a 2011 Monmouth University poll showed that more than 76 percent of New Jersey residents favor greater emphasis on road repair than new-road construction, and 54 percent agree transit should be expanded.

Given those facts, the most recent transportation re-authorization bill in the House of Representatives seems especially counterintuitive. As pointed out by our campaign partners at T4 America, H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act:

• Eliminates all dedicated funding for public transportation, penalizing current and would-be users of public transportation by allowing the service and state of repair of our transit systems to continue to decline;
• Eliminates the funding that helps make streets and roads safer for children, as well as for those who travel on foot or bike. 
• Does not provide sufficient funds to allow us to fix our existing bridges and roads. 

To learn more and to see how you can get involved, please visit the T4 America call to action.

A more local comparison might also help drive the point home.  Consider the Central Bucks School District, just across the Delaware River in Bucks County, Pa.  The district encompasses nine municipalities with a total 2010 Census population of 114,548.  There are 15 elementary schools, five middle schools, and three high schools scattered among the constituent municipalities, but they are all operated by a single district with a single superintendent and administrative hierarchy.

Hunterdon County’s population, at 128,349, is roughly similar to that of the Central Bucks school district.  But the 26 municipalities in Hunterdon County send their kids to a total of 30 different school districts.  Unlike in some other New Jersey counties, there are no municipalities in Hunterdon County that operate their own K-thru-12 school districts.  Each municipality except Bloomsbury sends its high school students to one of the county’s regional high schools, each of which serves multiple municipalities. (Bloomsbury sends its high school students to a regional district, too – Phillipsburg – but it’s in neighboring Warren County.)

Thirty districts for 26 municipalities

So if virtually all of Hunterdon’s high school students attend one of only five regional high schools (there are four regional high school districts in the county, one of which operates two high schools), how can there be 30 school districts serving the county?  Unlike in Pennsylvania, where the school district that operates a high school also operates all the elementary schools that feed into it, in New Jersey the elementary and middle schools that feed into a given high school are often run by entirely separate school districts.  These constituent districts can themselves sometimes serve more than one municipality (like Flemington-Raritan, which serves Raritan Township and Flemington Borough), but more often they serve only a single municipality, operating all elementary schools within that municipality. (See the sidebar on p.2 of New Jersey Future’s “Property Tax Reform & Land Use” (pdf) for more on Pennsylvania’s considerably less fragmented system of school districts, despite Pennsylvania being a fellow “home-rule” state.)

With 25 of these elementary-school-only districts (one for each of the 26 municipalities in the county, except for the one shared by Flemington and Raritan Township), plus the four regional high school districts, along with Bloomsbury sending to Phillipsburg High School – this is how you end up with 26 Hunterdon County municipalities sending their kids to 30 different school districts, a ratio of municipalities to school districts that doesn’t even manage 1:1.  (In contrast, Pennsylvania averages five municipalities per school district across the state.)  Compare that to Central Bucks, which demonstrates that a similar population can be effectively served by a single district, and the implications for administrative expense are obvious.  From a cost-saving standpoint, the Hunterdon freeholders’ move to study a countywide district seems like a smart one.

More than just cost savings

However, the benefits of more regionalized school districts don’t end at cutting bureaucracy and reducing administrative costs.  New Jersey’s fragmented universe of school districts leads to a host of undesirable or counterproductive land-use decisions.  With so many single-municipality school districts, many municipalities are on their own to raise school revenues solely from the properties located within their borders.  This means that when a new shopping mall or office park opens, the host municipality wins and all of its neighbors lose.  Reducing the total number of districts – that is, increasing the number of municipalities per district and thus increasing the geographic size of the property tax base over which revenues for a given district are generated – would go a long way toward reducing inter-municipal competition for taxable commercial property (the “ratables chase”).  When nine municipalities are sharing a school district, and all taxable properties within those municipalities are paying into the same pot of school money, it no longer makes as much of a difference which particular municipality secures the new mall.  Competition becomes less acute as the size of the units of competition increases.  Going to a countywide system (as in Maryland and Virginia, and as being contemplated by Hunterdon) means the unit of competition is the entire county; land-use decisions can be based on what makes the most sense from a regional planning perspective, rather than depending on the calculus of which of 30 atomized school districts is going to reap the fiscal benefits while its neighbors get nothing.

Reducing inter-municipal competition would also pay dividends in the housing market.  If the costs of educating new school children were spread across the entire county’s tax base, municipalities would become much less resistant to family housing and the school costs that come with it, and hence much less likely to zone for expensive homes on large lots or for age-restricted developments.  A housing market no longer constrained by municipalities’ practicing “fiscal zoning” would be free to provide housing in a greater variety of types, sizes, and price ranges, as opposed to today’s oversupply of big houses on big lots and undersupply of everything else.  With fewer people priced out of New Jersey’s housing market altogether, perhaps the tide of out-migration to other states could be stemmed.

Incidentally, Hunterdon County is far from unique in New Jersey; the state as a whole has a ratio of municipalities to school districts of less than 1:1.  The number of school districts in New Jersey could be cut in half by regionalizing districts in which the constituent municipalities are already engaging in some sort of sharing arrangement, whether it be a regional high school or a fee-per-pupil sending agreement with a neighboring district.  In Hunterdon County, this would mean dissolving each of the elementary-only districts into whichever of the regional high school districts it currently feeds, resulting in four true regional school districts serving the whole county (Bloomsbury would join the Phillipsburg school district).  Indeed, the municipalities that send to South Hunterdon Regional High School are already contemplating such a consolidation.

The Hunterdon County freeholders are to be applauded for their willingness to consider regional solutions where they are appropriate. Should they adopt some form of school district consolidation they would make the county a true pioneer from which the rest of the state can learn.

Of New Jersey’s 566 municipalities, more than half (328) had fewer residents as of the 2010 Census than they had at some time in the past, even though the state’s overall population is the largest that it has ever been.

Absorbing New Population Through Redevelopment

Extrapolating population projections from the Census Bureau and the New Jersey Department of Labor indicates New Jersey will gain about another 1 million residents by approximately 2042, 30 years from now. The question is, where will we put them?

One possible answer involves the standard “greenfield” model – that is, continuing to build on our undeveloped lands until everything is either developed, permanently preserved as open space, or undevelopable because of environmental constraints. As of 2007, New Jersey had just under a million (992,000) acres of developable land remaining. If recent land development trends continue – between 2002 and 2007, New Jersey developed 873 acres for every 1,000 net new residents – then accommodating a million new people will entail developing an additional 873,000 acres. This is nearly the entirety of the state’s remaining supply of developable land.  We’ll be very close to full build-out.

But what if we put the old model aside and instead considered an alternative? What if we seek to accommodate as much new growth as possible without having to develop any new land at all?

It turns out we could get three quarters of the way toward absorbing the next million residents simply by repopulating to their historical peak populations all of New Jersey’s municipalities that currently have fewer residents than at some point in the past. In principle, this would not have to involve any additional land development at all, since these municipalities were all able to house larger populations on the same or fewer developed acres. Substantial population growth can be accommodated through redevelopment: by reconfiguring or repurposing existing buildings, by building on surface parking lots or previously developed but now vacant sites, or by razing obsolete structures and building new ones.

These redevelopment opportunities are almost everywhere, based on empirical evidence. For example, municipalities that were already at least 90 percent built-out as of 2002 accounted for a full one-third of the building permits issued statewide from 2000 to 2009. (See New Jersey Future’s report Built Out but Still Growing for a more complete analysis of this building permit activity.) Between 2000 and 2010, a group of 95 municipalities that were already at least 90 percent built-out in 2002 collectively gained 91,000 residents.

Clearly, the fact that a place has already built on most of its land does not imply that it can no longer increase in population. A strategic focus on redevelopment means that New Jersey can absorb plenty of new growth and still do justice to the “garden” part of its Garden State nickname.

New Jersey Future will focus on effective strategies to redevelop these areas at its annual Redevelopment Forum March 9. Please join us for a day of workshops, learning and networking, all about issues affecting redevelopment efforts in the Garden State.

Source: Flickr

On Tuesday Gov. Christie signed into law S3156/A4335, which weakens the rules pertaining to DEP adopting new sewer service areas. New Jersey Future opposed the bill, but now that it has been signed we believe there are still ways to minimize its potential negative impacts on both growth patterns and environmental preservation.

Our full statement appears below.

Press coverage of S3156/A4335, the recently signed law to change New Jersey’s water quality rule, has been dominated by two opposing positions. The building community has insisted that the existing rule be scaled back and delayed to allow more opportunities for development projects on open lands in order to create jobs and jump-start the economy. Environmentalists, meanwhile, have focused on the bill’s adverse impact on the state’s drinking water supplies.

What has been missing from the debate is the very practical consideration of how the rule’s requirements will be implemented, regardless of the recent law. After 3½ years, will the DEP focus its resources so that up-to-date plans for sewer expansions are finally, actually, adopted? These plans will clearly delineate where the state and counties will prioritize growth and public investment in infrastructure, making the development process more predictable and efficient. Without them, the promise of strategic growth and clean water protections will be lost.

New Jersey residents want a “smart growth” development pattern. According to a recent Monmouth University poll, nearly 70 percent support a coordinated, statewide plan to steer growth and development to existing population centers in order to preserve farming communities and open spaces—findings that are nearly identical to a poll conducted in 2002. Gov. Christie’s draft State Strategic Plan echoes this vision, and calls for state agencies to line up their rules behind it.

Since development follows sewers, we can’t have a realistic land use plan for growth and preservation without a credible plan for where sewers are allowed.

Now that S3156 has been signed into law, the question at hand is whether the Christie administration will focus earnestly on the wastewater rule’s implementation, or look the other way and favor applications for sprawl development. The bill weakened the rule substantially, but its core provision—to update sewer service area designations to focus growth near developed areas and away from environmentally sensitive ones—is still alive, albeit on life support.

While it won’t be easy, updated sewer service area plans could be put into place this summer in most of the state. If it is serious about following the State Strategic Plan, the Christie administration must take four key steps:

1. Signal a clear intent to update sewer service area plans without delay. The DEP should focus more staff resources on this work, publish clear guidelines for counties and withdraw wastewater area designations in counties that fail to submit plans in a timely fashion.
2. Give the DEP staff a chance to adopt submitted plans formally before it is overburdened by requests for site-specific amendments, many of which will be in inappropriate locations. Tell counties to submit “clean” plans for sewer service areas that are not compromised by the inclusion of site-specific amendments.
3. Limit the designation of State Strategic Plan “Priority Investment Areas” for growth and preservation to locations with up-to-date wastewater plans.
4. Develop and share information on where wastewater capacity must be increased to support smart-growth plans and projects. Encourage counties to implement the rule’s now-voluntary provisions for limiting sewer expansions based on wastewater capacity.

Although New Jersey Future opposed passage of S3156, we believe New Jersey can aggressively promote development and redevelopment in the right places, while minimizing harm to the environment, if sewer service area plans are swiftly updated. The governor can accomplish this by extending the “New Jersey Comeback” attitude espoused in the State of the State address to the wastewater rule’s implementation.

We also took part in the Asbury Park Press experts’ liveblog during the speech, which you can find below the video here.

Route 1 in Mercer County. Credit: Peter Casellini

What’s the difference between a street and a road?  Many of us use these terms interchangeably to denote any linear stretch of pavement designed for use by cars.  But recognizing the distinction can mean the difference between good and efficient planning and a dysfunctional waste of public resources. 

Charles Marohn at Strong Towns offers an interesting analysis of the difference between a street and a road:

• “Roads move people between places while streets provide a framework for capturing value within a place.”

• “If we want to maximize the value of a road, we eliminate anything that reduces the speed and efficiency of travel.”

• “If we want to maximize the value of a street, we design it in such a way that it supports an adjacent development pattern that is financially resilient, architecturally timeless and socially enduring.”
  

The Difficulty: Route 1 Is Trying To Be a Street and a Road

The distinction between streets and roads has practical application here in New Jersey, where Marohn’s description of the typical suburban roadway rings especially true: “Anytime you are traveling between 30 and 50 miles per hour, you are basically in an area that is too slow to be efficient yet too fast to provide a framework for capturing a productive rate of return.” In other words, the thoroughfare doesn’t add value to its surroundings by serving as the public space where all the elements of a traditional downtown can be accessed safely on foot; neither does it facilitate efficient movement of vehicles. The result, Marohn says, is that “[a]ll you have here is a bunch of people making inefficient local trips on a highway sized for high-speed, through traffic. That’s not a traffic problem. It’s a land use problem.”

This distinction is an important aspect of the discussion about whether and how to institute a bus rapid transit (BRT) system along the Route 1 corridor in Mercer and southern Middlesex counties.  The municipalities that straddle Route 1 in central New Jersey have essentially been treating it as their Main Street, lining it with the land uses that formerly defined the traditional downtown: the innumerable strip malls offer local shopping and a multitude of low-rise office complexes act as employment centers.  The fact that none of these destinations connect to each other via a pedestrian-friendly local street network has resulted in exactly the mismatch that Marohn laments: Residents use Route 1 for local trips, and the resulting traffic interferes with the trucks and other regional through traffic that is trying to use Route 1 as the shortest route from the New Jersey Turnpike in New Brunswick to I-95 or the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

In short, Route 1 has become schizophrenic, trying to serve both as a link in the regional highway system and as a Main Street—but a Main Street designed exclusively for cars.

Creating a BRT system that would link destinations along the corridor, using its own new right-of-way, offers the hope of diverting some local traffic off Route 1 and relocating the highway’s Main Street functions to a safer environment. But just running it through the parking lots of the existing chain of malls and office parks does not accommodate the needs of pedestrians and cyclists (and transit riders taking the new BRT), because such a system would be inaccessible to residential areas and would still traverse a primarily automotive landscape.

The Solution: Let Route 1 Be a Road, Shift Street-like Functions Elsewhere

Addressing traffic and pedestrian issues and the BRT question with this distinction in mind could bring some clarity to the decision-making about how and where to direct resources. Much needs to be done before Route 1 can function as the limited-access highway that regional traffic flows say it should be. In particular, a safe and inviting network of local streets on either side of Route 1, that encourage walking and slower vehicular speeds, would need to be established.  (Canal Pointe Boulevard is a good example of just such a street.) Existing retail and office uses should then have their main entrances reoriented toward these local streets, so as to redirect local traffic away from Route 1.  Ideally, new residential and commercial development would also be promoted immediately adjacent to proposed BRT stations, in order to create the kind of dense, varied and walkable nodes that a BRT system needs in order to thrive.

Less complicated—but perhaps more controversial—is the other precondition for Route 1 being able to disentangle its two distinct and conflicting roles: the elimination of access points to the highway (i.e., driveways, traffic signals and entrance roads), or the institution of a system of taxation for highway access. Restriction of access is not likely to be welcomed by the businesses along the highway that take their at-grade access for granted, but it is the key to reducing the constant vehicular acceleration, deceleration and turning maneuvers that compromise Route 1’s function as a link in the state highway system. Some steps in this direction have already been taken with the conversion into fully grade-separated interchanges of formerly signaled intersections such as those at Quakerbridge Road and Meadow Road. 

Retrofitting Route 1 in Mercer County means focusing on its role as a link in the regional highway system while shifting its street-like functions elsewhere.  The BRT proposal offers an opportunity to open the dialogue about how best to do this.

While Route 1 slowly resolves its identify crisis by shedding its street functions and becoming a road, there are also opposite examples. Along Route 440 in Jersey City the choice has been made to convert to a street that functions as a pedestrian-friendly boulevard.  You can learn more about the Jersey City project and see other innovative examples at the 2012 Redevelopment Forum panel titled Complete Streets: How to Redevelop our Transportation Network.

The state has announced a schedule of six public hearings on the draft State Strategic Plan released in September. The public hearings represent an opportunity to share your views on where and how New Jersey should grow – and what the state’s role should be in accomplishing this vision. They take place throughout the state, from Newark and Morris Township in the north to Galloway Township in the south, all during the latter half of February and the early part of March.

Each meeting begins at 6:00 pm with a presentation about the plan, after which the public hearing begins at 7:00 pm. The dates and locations are:

• Galloway: Feb. 13, 2012, Campus Center Theatre, Richard Stockton College, 101 Vera King Farris Drive.
• Clayton: Feb. 16, 2012, Offices of Government Service, Building A, Gloucester County Clayton Complex, 1200 N. Delsea Drive.
• Newark: Feb. 23, 2012, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, NJTPA Conference Room, One Newark Center, 17th floor.
• Morris Twp.: Feb. 27, 2012, Haggerty Center, Frelinghuysen Arboretum, 353 East Hanover Avenue.
• W. Long Branch: Feb. 28, 2012, Bey Hall, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue.
• Bordentown: March 1, 2012, Rutgers University EcoComplex, 1200 Florence Columbus Road.

As noted in the announcement, should bad weather necessitate the cancelation of a hearing, two additional dates and locations have been reserved: March 6, 2012, at 6:00 p.m.  in the Special Events Forum Room, Civic Square Building, Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, and March 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in State House Annex Committee Room 1, 125 West State Street, Trenton.

Written comments may also be submitted for up to 30 days after the final hearing, either by email  (osg_edsosstatenjus)   or by mail to the State Planning Commission, Office for Planning Advocacy, PO Box 820, Trenton, NJ 08625-0820.

Copies of the draft plan and supporting documents are available for inspection online or in person at the New Jersey Department of State, Office for Planning Advocacy, 225 West State Street, Trenton, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

For more information on the State Strategic Plan, including analysis and press coverage, visit New Jersey Future’s State Strategic Plan Information Page.