Meeting Summary - The NJDOT convened with the City of Newark, Edwards and Kelcey (EK), Management Interventions (MII), and Louis Berger Group to kick off the community involvement and public participation meetings. MII presented their outreach approach and process which would engage Newark’s local residential community as well as the business and stakeholder communities. City of Newark expressed concern about the one-mile length of Route 21 – whether it can move traffic in and out of the city given the numerous amounts of development projects currently on-going in the vicinity of Route 21. The NJDOT recognizes that a balanced view of the project, through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, will take into account operational, safety, and environmental concerns. The planned government stakeholder group was divided into 2 distinct groups: Government Briefing Policy Group and Government Public Agency Stakeholder Group. The first group consists of a small group of the City of Newark officials who can offer pointed information regarding the immediate impacts to the project area. The second group is a larger group of more than 50 individuals representing authorities, agencies and other organizations that have working relationships in and around the City.

Meeting Summary - This community roundtable meeting was held at NJ TRANSIT’s headquarters. NJDOT provided a brief introduction which included the work that NJDOT is doing to ensure community participation. The EK team explained the traffic studies being performed on the corridor, the Environmental Assessment and NEPA process and the Environmental Justice sensitivities of the project area. The attendees were encouraged to ask questions and voice their concerns. Several questions related to existing properties (McDonalds) and how the project would impact them; the difficulty in crossing the roads; sidewalk safety; truck routes, Amtrak’s role in the project, Hamilton Street Bridge impacts and whether traffic projections took into account the future arena.

Meeting Summary - This second Community Roundtable meeting presented the two alternatives (4-lane and 6-lane) to the public. Cross sections and plans were presented so the attendees could understand what the concepts entailed. The Consultant pointed out that the 4-lane concept allowed for wider sidewalks by narrowing the inner travel lanes. It also improves safety by providing a separation area between the pedestrians and live vehicular traffic. A similar explanation was provided about the 6-lane concept. A model showing current travel times and future 4-lane, 6-lane build out travel times was explained.

Attendees filled out questionnaires and were encouraged to participate in further discussions. One key issue that surfaced from this meeting is the impacts to local businesses and community. As evidenced by participants, a diverse group of representatives from the local businesses were in attendance. Discussion topics ranged from impacts to businesses based on the two alternatives, improving the level of service, impacts to traffic from the future arena, and costs associated with building either concept.

Meeting Summary - The existing conditions of Route 21 from Murray Street to Edison Place were presented. Attendees received a packet of project materials and were encouraged to make comments and ask questions about the project. Questionnaires were collected at the end of the meeting. Several key issues from the questionnaire and comment period are noted as follows: (1) Navigational improvements, (2) Safety measures for all Route 21 users, (3) Traffic mobility, (4) Project timing and schedule, (5) Project coordination with concurrent area projects, (6) Aesthetic improvements and (7) Preservation of current resources.

Meeting Summary - This meeting, held at Gray Charter School, represented the first Community Information Forum targeted to the residents in and around the project area. A brief overview of the project and the outreach plan was presented to the attendees. Attendees were divided into 3 groups and discussions followed regarding their likes/dislikes, mobility/access, traffic and safety concerns. The questionnaires collected at the end of the session indicated that key issues for the attendees were (1) Safety of schoolchildren, (2) Overall safety measures for Route 21 users, (3) Traffic and mobility, (4) Aesthetic improvements, (5) Navigational improvements, (6) Project Timing and schedule, (7) Parking and (8) Preservation of current resources.

The proposed Six-Lane Concept would have three lanes in each direction, with one-foot wide inside shoulders and no outside shoulders. The outside lanes would be 15’ wide and would be considered bicycle-compatible. This concept features a 20’ wide median, as well as 10’ wide sidewalks and 5’ wide planting areas along both northbound and southbound Route 21. The median width would be intermittently reduced to provide for 12’ left turn lanes. Three pedestrian bridge overpasses over Route 21 are recommended to facilitate children walking to school. The six-lane concept involves a considerable widening and creates community and environmental justice impacts, and extensive right of way impacts.

Following, attendees had an opportunity to ask questions. They voiced their concerns regarding the cost of the 4-lane alternative versus the 6-lane alternative; the decision making process regarding the selection of the roadway improvement concept to be constructed; the impact of the 6-lane concept on local businesses such as McDonalds; the timeframe for the construction of the project and the fate of the ball field.

Project Summary - The third Community Information Forum included a brief review of the Public Outreach Program as well as the 4-lane and 6-lane concepts proposed for Route 21 from Murray Street to Edison Place. Features of each concept were discussed using cross sections and plan views. Louis Berger Group the presented an Evaluation Matrix containing a list of Environmental Categories for the local stakeholders to consider. For each category, the group was asked to indicated on their individual matrix their opinion of the importance, or sensitivity of that category with regard to this project, and then give their estimation of whether conditions of that category would be better, best, same, or worse under each of three improvement schemes (4-lane, the 6-lane and No-Action).

Questions at this meeting focused on pedestrian safety, the aesthetic treatment of either concept, particularly with regard to landscaping, the possibility of reducing the typical section in the 6-lane to lessen impacts on adjacent properties, and the construction phasing of either alternative.