August 29, 2012

LAUNCHING A NEW SEASON: McCarter Theatre’s second annual block party last week featured food, prizes, activities for kids, and music by the Philadelphia Jazz Orchestra. In this week’s Town Talk, some participants talk about their favorite McCarter productions. (Photo by Emily Reeves)

PNC Bank has plans to build a 4,020 square-foot new location on the site of its current, drive-through bank in Princeton Shopping Center. The new branch, which still needs approvals, is targeted to open in late 2013.

Currently, PNC has a storefront bank branch within the North Harrison Street shopping center as well as the drive-through location at the other end of the complex. The new construction would replace the freestanding drive-through site, and the branch within the shopping center would be moved to the new location.

According to PNC spokesman Fred Solomon, the new building will be “green” construction. “The expectation is that the new branch, like all recently built free-standing PNC branches, will be in our signature style, which is all LEED-certified,” he said. “PNC committed a number of years ago to all-green construction.”

The new location would have three drive-through lanes. The current building would be demolished to make way for the new construction. The architect for the project is listed on the plans as Gensler, who has designed all of PNC’s signature branch buildings as well as its large plaza in Pittsburgh and another building in Washington, D.C. But local architects sometimes consult on construction, Mr. Solomon said.

PNC’s preliminary plans for the building have been reviewed once, but more information is necessary before the formal approval process begins. Once resubmitted with the required information, the proposal would go before Princeton’s Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB) and Regional Planning Board, and a public hearing would be held.

PNC is headquartered in Pittsburgh. The bank has numerous branches in New Jersey. The newest is located in Yardville. “New branches are constantly under construction,” said Mr. Solomon, “as we consolidate old branches and open in locations where we see greater growth.”


March 7, 2012

To the Editor:

I was happy to read that the NJDOT has agreed to postpone its experimental closing of the Harrison Street and Washington Road jug-handles on Route 1. It was refreshing to see what can be accomplished when our merchants, University, and elected officials present a united front. My only concern is that this experiment will lead to biased results (in favor of permanent closure) if it is conducted in August. Many employees and customers who would typically enter Princeton using one of these jug-handles will be away on vacation in August. Since many of the folks who will be most impacted by the proposed closures will not be around to voice their concerns, the cost of the closure will be underestimated. Furthermore, the benefits of the experiment will be overestimated since NJDOT will observe reduced congestion at these intersections and attribute it to the jug-handle closures (and not to the fact that fewer cars are on the road). Thus, I propose that the experiment be conducted in September or October, not August.

Smita Brunnermeier
Maclean Circle

February 15, 2012

When the New Jersey Department of Transportation introduced plans last month to temporarily close the Route 1 jughandles at Washington Road and Harrison Street, Princeton business owners were among the most visibly upset. The idea of curtailing access to town for up to three months, starting in mid-March, was met with incredulousness and some mild hostility.

Less than two weeks later, the DOT announced that the pilot program was being postponed until August 1. Welcome news to business owners, the deferment came about two days after representatives of the Princeton Merchants Association (PMA), joined by representatives of local government, Princeton University, and the University Medical Center at Princeton, traveled to Ewing Township to meet with NJDOT Commissioner James Simpson about their concerns.

It was this united-front approach, combined with careful planning, that got the message across, say those involved in the effort. It began just after the DOT had made its presentation about the proposed jughandle closings. PMA president Carly Meyer gathered members in a meeting room at the Bank of Princeton to voice their concerns. Borough Commissioner Kevin Wilkes was also invited to that meeting, held just after the DOT’s information sessions in West Windsor and Princeton.

“We made a list of problems and I agreed to reach out to the transportation commissioner,” Mr. Wilkes said. “I had had experience with him last year in working out the Memorandum of Understanding (with Princeton University), and I knew him well enough to send him an email asking for a meeting. He immediately replied and said ‘Of course, no problem.’”

The group, which also included David Newton of Palmer Square Management; Chris Hanington of Princeton Shopping Center; Pam Hersh of University Medical Center of Princeton; Lori Rabon of The Nassau Inn; Jack Morrison of JM Group; Jan Weinberg of Weinberg Management; Barry Weisfeld of Princeton Record Exchange; and Karen Jezierny and Kristin Appelget of Princeton University, prepared a draft of points to be considered. “It was like a position paper, circulated around to make sure everybody’s concerns were outlined,” Mr. Wilkes said. “We sent it to the commissioner ahead of time, so they knew what we would be talking about. I don’t feel it’s useful to go into a meeting like that and surprise them with a bunch of gripes.”

On a conference call the day before the meeting with the commissioner, the group rehearsed who was going to say what. “We did another quick run-through the day of the meeting, when we got there,” Mr. Wilkes said. “We walked in the door at 8:30 and were probably out by 9:50, and it went very well. We didn’t know when we left what would result, but the Commissioner called within an hour to talk about actual strategies. The one he was most willing to try was a postponement. By Thursday afternoon, he made the announcement.”

Mr. Wilkes said that the group had alternately suggested closing Washington Road’s jughandle while leaving the Harrison Street one open, or possibly doing the experiment for only four weeks. The reasoning that seemed to convince the commissioner to defer the pilot program was that the opening of University Medical Center of Princeton’s new complex on Route 1, which is set for May 22, would interfere with the baseline data they were trying to collect.

Mr. Newton, who was among the most vocal at the DOT’s original information session, said he was pleased with the outcome of the meeting. “The Commissioner and his staff were very gracious with us,” he said. “They listened to our concerns, and we listened to them. They really do have an enormous problem on Route 1 between Alexander and Scudders Mill Road. We came up with the idea, and they kindly agreed to wait and see what impact there is going to be after the hospital moves. The one thing we left with is that we would like to be included in helping them work out the longer term solution to the problem.”

Ms. Hanington said the collaborative approach was the key. “The Princeton Borough and Township merchants joined together several years ago for exactly this purpose,” she wrote in an email. “By the time this Route 1 closure issue came up our association was much more than just a marketing group. We are truly a united community …. I am proud of our ‘battle victory‘ but really our work on this has just begun.’”

Ms. Rabon told the DOT Commissioner that the March-to-May closing of the jughandles would adversely affect those who have already planned weddings and other functions at the Nassau Inn during that time. “I wanted to make sure that hotels and banquet halls both downtown and along Route 1 have an opportunity to alert their guests,” she said. “They were really good about listening. We’ve got 1.3 million visitors that come downtown [a year], and it’s important to make sure we communicate with the DOT about this. They are promising to continue to work with us so we can get the messages out. This was a coming-together of PMA members with government, where you don’t always find such a willingness to listen and cooperate.”

The fact that the group spoke “in one voice, low on emotionalism and high on fact,” made the difference, Mr. Wilkes said. “We’re not saying they shouldn’t do the test at all. We’re saying that the way it is presently proposed might cause more harm than good. We want to work together with them. We have to entertain the possibility, even if we think it is remote, that the test will work out for everybody. We need to be open to empirical results.”