GUEST COLUMN
NJ District 15 legislators
New Jersey has a problem. Residential and commercial development is currently outpacing our transportation infrastructure’s ability to handle local and commuter traffic. Certain areas exhibit the symptoms of this problem more so than others, but few are immune from the effects that statewide development has had on our daily commute and the safety of our roads. Here in Mercer County and beyond, Route 31 is clearly an example of a road that is being stretched to its limits.
Over the past decade, population growth and the arrival of large-scale employers in the Hopewell Valley region have thrust Route 31 into a role where it handles traffic volumes beyond its intended capacity. Toss in a development boom in Southern Hunterdon and Somerset counties during the same period of time and we have a situation borne out of development that fails to account for its regional impact.
As it stands today, the Hopewell Valley is facing numerous development projects surrounding the stretch of Route 31 between the Pennington Circle and I-95. It is also an epicenter of increased truck traffic, automobile accidents, and unsafe driving. And as such, causes concern for motorists, pedestrians and government officials alike.
Recently, we met with Department of Transportation officials to discuss how traffic safety along Route 31 can be better addressed. We were informed that the department has been working on ways to help alleviate congestion and safety concerns, as well as monitor traffic patterns throughout the Route 31 corridor. However, the area does not lend itself to a quick fix due to land usage and proposed development in the area, and as a result, requires careful consideration and cooperation among various state and local entities before any meaningful plan can be put in place. DOT recognizes this, and has promised to work with Hopewell Township, Mercer County, the Department of Community Affairs, and the Office of Smart Growth to create a realistic strategy for the future.
On a legislative level, we have advocated for giving municipalities the tools to combat sprawl and better prepare for costly infrastructure improvements to accommodate growth. The crux of the problem is that developers in good faith have seized upon opportunities to develop their land purchased at market rates while towns are in a precarious position and unable to compete with them considering the dwindling resources for open space acquisitions.
In response to this rapid development without regard to its impact on infrastructure or quality of life on residents, we have sponsored three crucial pieces of legislation that have faced fierce opposition from special interests who see little benefit for their bottom line.
Specifically, S.352/A.780, would allow municipalities to impose "impact fees" on developers to contribute towards the costs associated with street improvements, water and sewer improvements and educational facilities. While municipalities in the short term may gain additional "ratables" from new development projects, property taxes will only go up in the long term to finance all the expected infrastructure improvements such as new schools, more roads, and even additional police needed to patrol the neighborhoods. S.352/A.780, would require a more realistic look at the full impact of such development projects.
Equally important, S.435/A.2125, would permit municipalities to adopt "timed-growth ordinances" so that they can better set the pace of development by limiting growth to infrastructure improvements. Unfortunately, the situation is in reverse where developers in effect, force municipalities to make infrastructure upgrades to adapt to development plans in progress.
Finally, A-2123/S.729 would allow municipalities to require traffic performance plans before approving developments along major highways. Simply put, we cannot continue to allow development to choke our transportation corridors unless the roads can accommodate the additional traffic.
We believe that these pieces of legislation will give our local governments the tools to control development, be proactive in their planning, and assist in converting uncontrolled sprawl to smart growth. Unfortunately, it will take a concerted effort by constituents across the state to overcome opposition to these common sense proposals. In this regard, we will continue to press for the advancement of these bills through the legislative process.
In the end, we recognize that Hopewell Valley deserves support in its efforts to control runaway growth. Development should only come to a community when its full impact is weighed and measured by its citizens. While we may be a victim of our own success, traffic congestion and a deteriorating quality of life are very steep prices to pay.
The 15th District legislators are Sen. Shirley K. Turner, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora and Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman.

