| Author |
Message |
    
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 74
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:38 am: |     |
Irvington Pirate-
I really didin't know of this project until I heard about it at the BOT's meeting on Monday. APparently the town commissioned some sort of study to see how to make South Orange pedestrian- and bike-friendly. I think a bike path was part of the study. No finanacials were discussed or studied from what I could tell.
I thought it interesting though that the people who conducted the study (Parsons Brinkerhoff?) never mentioned the terrain of the town as an issue. Half the town has very steep grades which make bike riding only for the very hardy. Anyone else would have to walk their bike up the hills. So I think such a proposal would benefit only those on the flat portions of town...right now the same population served by the jitney! |
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 251
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:42 am: | |
There is a lot of town that is relatively flat that is not the Montrose area. |
Irvington Pirate
Citizen
Username: Irvingtonpirate
Post Number: 21
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:50 am: | |
Thanks for the info jayjay, sounds like an interesting project. With parking problems in the village it may get people thinking of alternate ways of coming into town, not to mention the benefits for those who like this method of exercise. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 610
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 8:47 am: | |
Parsons Brinkerhoff is a major player in Boston's "Big Dig" project. The entire bike trail could be buried under the town in a series of tunnels. This would deal with the terrain issue. Cool!
|
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 269
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:48 am: | |
This is on the Village website:
http://www.southorange.org/news.asp?page=1
I thought the presentation was very nice and overall, would be very beneficial to S.O. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2093
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:09 am: | |
Jayjay: You should read the presentation. It does point out that much of S. Orange is hilly.
Sheena: Thanks for posting the link. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 77
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:33 am: | |
Mr ROsner-
This is the only reference i could find to terrain.
"Although much of South Orange is hilly, it also offers excellent bicycling opportunities to many destinations, especially along the valley of the east branch of the Rahway River"
While its nice to think about being bike and pedestrian friendly, I don't think its realistic for much of the town above Ridgewood Ave., since the terrain precludes bike riding and even walking to the so-called destinations in many cases. I couldn't find any reference that deals with this.
I would like to know how much this will cost the taxpayers, given that it really only serves part of the town. I would want to see a priority list from the BOT on all capital expenditures being considered. And let's not forget that any project will require on-going maintenance. So let's see projections on on-going maintenace as well. With the amount of money taxpayers are being asked to shell out, can we please start using some business-like approaches to how things are run? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:53 am: | |
Jayjay, I believe this is covered with a grant. And the point is not to make the entire town accessible via bike from every point in the town. That is simply not feasible, even if the town were completely flat.
Based on previous discussions here, it appears to be a bike path along the Rahway River (storm drain) from one end of town to the other, possibly joining with other paths in neighboring towns. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2094
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:03 am: | |
JayJay: I see a lot of bike riders on Wyoming Avenue every day. I see bike riders in Newstead. On weekends I see people riding up my street (and I am on a steep hill). I am often amazed at how many people ride up S. Orange Ave to the reservation.
I think it would be great to have better bike and walking paths for people to use throught the village.
A lot of the changes (as pointed out at the meeting) could be done thru the normal infrastructure repairs (curb cuts when sidewalks are redone, bike lanes incorporated into repaving projects, etc). Part of the suggestions could be incorporated into the river corridor project and there are numerous grants available (some matching) that would cover a substantial portion of the cost.
This was a presentation of a study and there would be more hearings and meetings to see if the residents would like to see some of the reccomendations were to be put in place.
The residents pay taxes. They expect to see the parks maintained, the roads paved, etc. Not all services are used by all residents. Not every one plays tennis but we still spend money on tennis courts (new nets, painting the lines, etc). While not everyone rides a bike, a lot of people do.
|
mary brenner
Citizen
Username: Marybrenner
Post Number: 3
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:05 am: | |
Jay jay i am new to this site .....but be serious we are talking about a bike path. Why are you concerned at all about a bike path? I say get it done fast so I can use it. |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:10 am: | |
Mark: The county representative who spoke at the last meeting said there is an open space grant opportuntity this year for $300K. I sure hope we get that one.
BTW: The issues raised by the tennis community showed a good deal of concern. I agree with them.
Furthermore, the artist rendering in the slideshow presents the area with the tennis courts remaining. Why are some in favor of removal at this time? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2095
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:30 am: | |
Pizzaz: The plans presented for the River Corridor project (not to be confused with the bike path study) showed several variations. One of those included moving the two courts closest to the river to another spot. The total number of courts would not change, just the location.
Some in favor of that variation felt it would help ease the parking by the Baird center, help get people to using other courts and allow for a wider bike/walking path.
At this point it is still in discussion (at committee level) and there have been public hearings. Everyone who has an opinion or a concern can speak (or email) the next time there is a meeting (you can be notified by signing up on the village calendar for any meeting).
The plan's consultants have been working with residents and the village to see what works best.
|
mary brenner
Citizen
Username: Marybrenner
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:31 am: | |
Why not remove the road that runs behind the tennis courts all together? That way you would have room for the path and not have to move the tennis courts. You should have handicapped parking only by baird. It is a dangerous parking area. Then you could add a skate board park in the parking lot next to the tennis courts. That would solve all the problems. |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:45 am: | |
so handicapped people can walk from baird to the pool? I think if they widenend the driveway and ended it at the pool that would make more sense. Or run a bike path or walking path around the baseball field adjacent to the playground and pool? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2097
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:49 am: | |
Old and Gray: You should look at the plans. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 78
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:43 pm: | |
Mr Rosner-
Its not that I am against the bike path because not everyone could use it. What I am in favor of is running the town more like a business. We need to understand all the capital expenditures under consideration. I have heard everything from SOPAC, to bike path to renovating the BAIRD to Riverwalk to I don't know what. I would want all the porjects laid out, explain how they work against a strategic vision for the town, priorities set (ideally by input from the public) and then monies allocated. What I object to is what seems to be an ad hoc way in which projects are set out and funded. |
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 252
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:08 pm: | |
Lets have a referendum, California style! |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 318
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:11 pm: | |
jayjay, you raise what I consider the important issues. The CBAC as well is concerned about these issues/question and we addressed them at the last BOT meeting.
I have attached the three statements presented.
This was also articulated in our (ADE) campaign during the last election <http://www.howard-levison.com/platform.html>
|
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 813
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:33 pm: | |
DGM...did you ever live in California? I did.
The referendum process was a nightmare. We routinely had to vote on 10-30 different referenda (more when we lived in San Francisco, which had local referenda), sometimes three or four on the same issues, many of them very technical (e.g. pension plan details). On key issues we might pass two or three competing propositions, and then the courts would have to try to sort it out. I remember at least one referenda that passed that was later deemed unconstitutional.
Before every election we had to develop a clipping file so that we could try to figure out all of the obscure issues and dense laws being presented to us as voters. Personally, I like to think that we elect representatives so that we don't have to do all of this ourselves! |
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 253
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:55 pm: | |
10-4 1014
I was being facetious. It would end up that a small number of voters would approve or deny the projects anyway, and yes the initiative system in California puts a lot of responsibility on the voter that may not be appropriate. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 814
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:51 pm: | |
dgm,
Sorry to sound grumpy...it's just that being an informed voter in California was such a dreadful task. It's one thing that I really don't miss about the place! (along with the aftereffects of Proposition 13) |
mitchell rider
Citizen
Username: Washburn
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 9:12 pm: | |
the issue is not displacing the tennis courts in favor of a bike path. as a tennis player, i think the bike path is a good idea. i just don't see the need to destroy one part of the park, that is used frequently for a bike path that may or maynot be used. additionally, this town as well as maplewood, prides itself in diversity of races, creeds and whatnot. well you will find no better example of that then at those very same courts that are in dispute. if this is do be a true community in harmony, alternate plans should be explored and the town should not try to push this through without serious thought. to gain exactly what? sounds like parking spaces is more on the agenda then bike path. i could be wrong.....naw who am i kidding. i think i'm right. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 743
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 9:36 pm: | |
The tennis players had no problem demanding an indoor tennis bubble in the park for winter use, which would have been a huge eyesore and benefitted no one but them. |
mitchell rider
Citizen
Username: Washburn
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 9:46 pm: | |
the tennis players did not want the bubble. that was the brainstorm of the rec dept. the players would never have paid for an unheated, ill lit bubble....sorry, we did not want nor ask for a bubble... |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 9:52 pm: | |
jayjay wrote:
"I would want to see a priority list from the BOT on all capital expenditures being considered. And let's not forget that any project will require on-going maintenance. So let's see projections on on-going maintenace as well. With the amount of money taxpayers are being asked to shell out, can we please start using some business-like approaches to how things are run?"
In addition to other stuff that didn't strike a cord with me.
All of the above seems like common sense. If we're not using this approach to all projects - and it seems like we might not be - we should.
If you think we are, I'd suggest looking at the condition of some of the landscaping improvements and what I'll call monument installations that appear to have been made in the last 5 years, we're either not thinking about maintenance when projects are designed(2 ways - amount of upkeep -weeding, etc - and hardiness of materials, ie, appropriateness for freeze/thaw of NJ winters) or we're just not funding the maintenance when the time comes to do so. The obelisk, circular drive at train station and steps nearby already appear well on the way to needing a facelift.
Having said that, without reading all of the above, I like the idea of bike path - seems like a great amenity that can be enjoyed by a wide cross section of the community. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 745
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:52 am: | |
My mistake. I apologize. |
washburn
Citizen
Username: Washburn
Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:41 am: | |
no problem lizzie. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
CBAC Statements