Mayoral hopefuls Liz Lempert (D) and Dick Woodbridge (R) were named as a “panel” and given the chance to ask questions in response to four transit-related presentations given on Saturday morning at a Princeton Future meeting.

After the first presentation, a talk billed as a “Planned Projects Status Report of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s Central New Jersey Transportation Forum” by Sustainable Jersey Chair Pam Mount, Princeton Future Chair Sheldon Sturgis was quick to point out – not without humor – the virtual absence of questions from the candidates. Not surprisingly, perhaps, each referred to their own achievements and ideas on the topics at hand.

Focusing on local, present-day concerns, Ms. Lempert, who is Township Deputy Mayor, cited recent Township Committee street improvements, and spoke of the difficulties posed by the current Department of Transportation “trial” that limits left-hand turns onto Route 1 at Washington Road and Harrison Street.  Referencing  his long-time history in the area, Mr. Woodbridge, who grew up in Princeton and served as Township mayor, spoke of changes he has witnessed over the years and referred to old friendships with officials like former Borough Mayor Marvin Reed, who was at the meeting.

Looking ahead, however, Mr. Woodbridge picked up what became a recurring theme of the morning: that Princeton is a regional center with broad, metropolitan concerns.  Mr. Woodbridge noted that more than two million people a year visit Princeton.

Neither candidate responded to Ms. Mount’s assertion that she “believes in government, but on a very limited basis.”

Mr. Reed, who is currently chair of the Master Plan Subcommittee of the Regional Planning Board, gave a report on “A Mobility Plan for the New Princeton.”   People who packed the Library’s Community Room for the meeting had a good laugh when Mr. Reed pointed out that consolidation means Borough residents will no longer be able to blame Township residents for whatever is wrong, and, of course, vice-versa.

In his talk, Mr. Reed emphasized the discrepancy in the number of people traveling into Princeton (approximately 25,000) and the number of motorists leaving the area (approximately 6,500) each day.  He also noted that any future development in the area will be “redevelopment,” rather than the creation of large new corporate facilities or groupings of multiple new houses.

On a related note, Consolidation Commission Chair Anton Lahnston averred that it is simply not possible to “build out of congestion.” He also spoke of the “perception in Princeton” that public transportation is “not for us.”

Ralph R. Widner of the Princeton Traffic and Transportation Committee delivered a well-received report on “Using a Traffic Database to Fully Frame Problems and Options.”  He suggested that 80 percent of Princeton’s traffic problems “come from outside,” and that focusing on “point to point” transit systems in the community was not the way to go. He reported that statistics being compiled for a local traffic database would “provide a total map of the whole problem,” and cited a need for being proactive and creating a “foreign policy” on traffic that would be in the New Jersey economy’s best interests.

Yan Bennett and Steven Kruse of the Princeton Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee gave the fourth presentation, “An Ad Hoc Bike Plan for Princeton,” emphasizing the need to reconcile car traffic volume with the number of bicycle riders in the area.  Responding to this last talk, Ms. Lempert, who is a member of the the Joint Pedestrian and Bike Committee and the Traffic Safety Committee, discussed educating the public about bike routes in order to become a “bike-friendly” city.  Mr. Woodbridge described observations he’s made during his routine 13-1/2 mile bike ride around the area.

Princeton Future, which was created in 2009, describes itself as a “diverse, nonpartisan group of volunteers of Princeton Borough, Township and region. .. dedicated to protecting and enhancing our unique community and we share concerns about the directions future growth and development may take.” This most recent meeting gave participants an opportunity to join “break-out sessions” focusing on particular kinds of neighborhoods after the presentations.