To the Editor:

Following are two issues to illustrate notable gaps in sustainability in Princeton:

1) Public Transit: This relates to a lead article in the Nov. 13 Town Topics (“Task Force Tackles Traffic Increase…”). It’s good to know that there is an effort to focus on current and future transit problems in Princeton because such decisions can enhance or imperil a town’s quality of life. Without good transit planning, gridlock will surely occur especially with several large developments currently being built or planned in Princeton.

This issue has been discussed by several groups over many years and was also taken up in 2007 by the then Princeton Regional Health Commission (now called Princeton Board of Health) of which I was a member. At that time the Commission wrote a letter to the New Jersey Transit’s (NJT) then executive director about their plan to have more Bus Rapid Transit in Princeton. Copies of the letter were sent to relevant others working on transit, including municipal entities and Princeton University.

The Health Commission’s concern in 2007 was the health effects of public transit’s use of fossil fuels, especially diesel, thus it urged a switch to clean alternative energy such as electric, which is also quieter, as well as low emission vehicles such as hybrids. These clean fuel vehicles are particularly suited to the relatively short runs that our local public transit systems use. So far this has not happened in any meaningful way.

As we encourage people to walk and bike more for less traffic congestion, for energy conservation and for a healthier life style, it is important that they not be exposed to dirty air from cumulative public transit vehicles. Such noxious emissions would also be detrimental to local businesses in creating an unpleasant atmosphere. While a reference is made to air quality in the recent URS Consulting company traffic report for Princeton, it does not get much attention. It is essential that public officials, the University and NJT plan now to have cleaner alternative fuel vehicles in our public transit systems, especially in any expanded system.

2) The falling leaves: As another fall ritual comes to an end, it is not sustainable financially and otherwise to continue to use the kind of resources we do annually in expensive heavy machinery and maintenance, fuel and labor collecting tons of leaves to be hauled away. There are at least three alternatives: a) On wooded lots leaves can be raked or blown into the woods enriching the soil rather than being put on roadways for collection; b) on smaller or non-wooded lots a small corner can often be found to place the leaves where Mother Nature will reduce the pile down to a fraction of its original volume over the winter. This can be used as winter cover in garden areas or just left alone; c) leaf shredders are increasingly being used in some areas to keep very fine particles in lawns as a means of enriching the soil.

Homeowners and landscapers should be better educated about these alternatives. Eventually, we may need an ordinance to control wasteful costs especially in areas where leaves can easily be dealt with onsite.

These two issues need some focus now since the wheels of implementation grind so slowly.

Grace Sinden

Ridgeview Circle