| Author | Message | ||
     Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 9 Registered: 9-2003 |
If, and that is a big question, there is trouble with sufficent available parking near the train, doesn't it MAKE sense to have resiential development near the station so that new residents can walk to the station and not be burdened with finding a parking spot? And for the Quarry development, a jitney, funded by the developer, is an obvious solution that should be requested by both town officials and new owners. I don't find downtown South Orange overpopulated,in fact, it could use some more shoppers, strollers, cafe drinkers, etc. | ||
| fred block Citizen Username: Zachary2 Post Number: 16 Registered: 1-2003 |
Trapper: Excellent point made about the parking and overdevelopment near the train station. Checked again this morning and there were only a couple of cars in the Shop Rite lot. I guess the $5 per day is too much and SO is successful in keeping the lot empty. | ||
| paddy Citizen Username: Paddy Post Number: 133 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anybody know what the occupancy rate for Gaslight Commons is yet? If it is not too high can the town approach them about renting some of the spots in there to residents for a reasonable fee (i.e. not $5 a day, not $1200 a year). | ||
| Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 11 Registered: 9-2003 |
Acccording to the Gaslight, occupancy is about 90% | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 84 Registered: 5-2001 |
Say, could I get a little chunk of land nearby and build a 2-3 level parking garage (nicely architected to blend into the surroundings)? I'll bet I could make a mint over the mismanaged lame-o NJT lot. I'd offer upscale services too like a detailing service and maybe even drop off/pick up your drycleaning, etc. I'd be an asset to the community, a good neighbor, increase the commercial tax base and make the town more attractive to a larger-scale commercial enterprise which could act as an 'anchor' store for the town. Ha ha ha ha ha ... oh I almost started convincing myself something this sane and logical could actually happen here. Large, upscale market just begging for these services... practically begging to be a captive audience... extremely low satisfaction rate with the current service providers... a good size chunk of flattened land right next to the train station... nah, too logical. Can you imagine the opposition? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 646 Registered: 4-2002 |
Gaslight is now 93% occupied. Trapper: You answered your own question about the Gaslight commons. They have their own spaces so those residents do NOT need their cars to go to the train station Or to shop in the village. Same will be true for Shop-Rite and Beifus developments. Both new developments will also have spaces earmarked for shoppers. The quarry development is a result of a court order and the village negotiated to reduce the number of homes. The village plans to expand the jitney so any resident can use it to go to the village. There will be less than 69 homes there and that is not enough to justify the expense of a jitney by itself. Those homeowners will be paying taxes the same as any other homeowner and will have the same rights. Guesswho: Most storeowners would agree with you that the village is far from overpopulated but would love to see that become a problem. Parking problems are a sign of success. 10 years ago S. Orange was a ghost town with no parking issues. Fred: Yesterday 37 people shelled out the five bucks to park. Less than when it was free (no surprise there) but enough that clearly the fee is ok. My guess is the number will increase over the next few weeks when people find out about it (we are not advertising it). | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 404 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, "The quarry development is a result of a court order " - WRONG. The quarry development is a result of poor planning by the Village which failed to have a COAH plan in place. When the developer sued under COAH in the early 1990's, the court ruled on how the quarry needed to be developed IF it ever were to be developed. There was NEVER a requirement that it MUST be developed. That was purely a result of the Village's ever desparate quest for ratables. For full text of the "court order": http://www.preserveso.com/consent.htm Yes, the number of units was reduced, but only as a result of the public pressure imposed by CPSO and the citizens of the town. Sorry for the thread drift....I now return to the topic at hand: parking for the train (which will only be made worse by the development of the quarry!) | ||
| fred block Citizen Username: Zachary2 Post Number: 17 Registered: 1-2003 |
mrosner: Thanks for the update on the fee issue. I spoke to several commuters this morning who parked there and they complained directly to the parking authority about the $5 charge. The parking authority advised them that this fee is being negotiated. Any truth to this? Also, 37 cars may sound pretty good for the first day, but I wonder if that number will hold up by the end of this week once the commuters find alternative places to park for less money. Let us assume 35 cars park there daily resulting in a fee of $175 per day or $875 per week to SO. If 120 cars (approx. lot capacity) were to park there for $3 per day the daily fee would be $360 or $1800. You tell me what would be a better deal to SO? | ||
| kevin Citizen Username: Kevin Post Number: 93 Registered: 2-2002 |
I have a question about the large tracts of vacant land slated for development in the village - namely ShopRite and Beifus. If we are going to grant the developers PILOT status, I feel as though they should do something for us. What about requiring them to build underground commuter parking? The lots will have to be escavated anyway for foundations - why not dig one extra level dedicated for commuter parking. I'm not sure how much engineering is involved with building underground parking, but it wouldn't be as expensive as building a 'finished' floor and it would be guaranteed to generate revenues. They do this all the time in the Manhattan. It would also help the aesthetics of the village by having hidden parking. | ||
| fred block Citizen Username: Zachary2 Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kevin: That is an excellent idea. I would focus this parking for SO residents first since they will be confronted with more limited parking to the new homes in town and the increase in taxes in town. | ||
| kevin Citizen Username: Kevin Post Number: 94 Registered: 2-2002 |
Fred: Since we are doing some number crunching, did you ever think about this? Take the number of days that you parked in the Shoprite lot paying $0.00. Lets use 365 days. Say that you park there for the next 365 days and pay the $5.00 fee per day. It seems to me that you will only really be paying $2.50/day for parking. That is quite a deal. It will take you nearly 2 years of paying the $5.00/day fee to actually pay more than $3.00/day parking, assuming that you parked in the Shoprite lot for free for a year. There have been people parking there since the Shoprite closed in 2000 and I am sure that some have parked there while it was still functioning as a market. | ||
| fred block Citizen Username: Zachary2 Post Number: 19 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kevin: Stick with your parking proposal. Your argument makes no sense. SO cannot collect past fees for its mismanagement of the lot. I am sure you and many others would have parked in the lot for free. Why was it free? Ask SO that question but do not blame the commuters for the past conduct of SO. I used to park in the daily lot and the meter spots until some very nice SO commuters advised me of the free lot at Shop Rite. Let us move on from the past conduct and address my prior posting regarding the fees that SO could collect at the lot. Thank you. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 239 Registered: 7-2003 |
"Gaslight is now 93% occupied" What? No way, maybe 60%. Where is everyone and how come they don't turn their lights on, or go in or out of the building?? | ||
| kevin Citizen Username: Kevin Post Number: 96 Registered: 2-2002 |
Fred: The lot was never "free". If you haven't looked on the poles in the lot, there are signs that say "no commuter parking" - unless they have taken them down since they started charging yesterday. The fact that the illegal parking was not enforced is an entirely separate matter that people took advantage of. Why do you assume that I would have parked in the lot for free? To this day, I never have and do not. While on the waiting list for a parking permit, I used to get to the train station early enough to pay for a metered spot or make arrangements to be dropped off. I now pay for a permit - it is part of the total cost of living that should be factored in (time and costs) when moving to the suburbs and working in the city. In regards to my last post, I was only pointing out that you are probably still getting a great deal by paying $5.00/day in the lot depending on how long you have been parking there for free. It sounds as though you are still wanting something for nothing. I am sure that you would have complained if they started charging $3.00 per day for the lot. You probably would have said something to the fact that the meter parking is $3.00 so why should anyone have to pay $3.00 for a "distant dark lot that floods when it rains". (big assumption on my part) | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 647 Registered: 4-2002 |
Brett: I only go by what the management company says. They have rented a lot of apartments thru corporate relocations which would explain some of the apartments appear vacant. Kevin: Underground parking is extremely expensive to build and unlike Manhattan, there are limitations to what can be charged. There is an issue with an underground water basin so not sure it can be done anyway. No question hidden parking would be better. Mayhewdrive: You are right about one thing, a discussion about the quarry if you want to have one should be on another thread. I will leave it that we have a difference of opinion. | ||
| fred block Citizen Username: Zachary2 Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kevin: The signs you are speaking about exist near the bank and restaurant and liquor store. There are no signs further away from these establishments. The lot (I am assuming) was part of Shop Rite. When they closed, Shop Rite elected not to enforce whatever restrictions on parking it may have had at that time. When SO took over, they did nothing. This created in essence an abandoned lot that many commuters including SO residents took advantage of. Maybe you would not have taken advantage of the free lot, which is commendable but you should not with a broad brush attack the other commuters who assumed their own risk for parking in an abandoned lot that is dark and not patrolled. Cars could have been broken into or stolen or people could have been attacked. That is what you get for parking for free. If that happens now, what out for some signficant suits since SO has now taken the active role for creating a safe place to park. You can assume what you want regarding whether I would have complained about a charge of $3 per day. But you are wrong. I was only looking for SO to be fair to its commuters (including SO commuters) by charging the same rate as other lots. | ||
| fred block Citizen Username: Zachary2 Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2003 |
Mrosner: I am curious as to whether a proposal was ever looked into for erecting a parking deck where the current Transit lot exists? Also, who owned the land where the Transit lot was built? Thanks. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 648 Registered: 4-2002 |
Fred: The original plans called for a deck at the NJ Transit lot. Under the threat of a lawsuit from a few residents and business owners, they backed off those plans. There would have been at least another 200 spots depending on the configuration. I have already formally asked them to consider building a deck on part of the property but they have their own budget issues and they will not consider at this time. The Village is looking at some alternatives at putting a deck including one at the third street lot (by the rescue squad). Any other location would be purely speculation and not worth mentioning at this time. Our property values have increased and a large part in thanks to the Midtown Direct. As I pointed out that has created a parking problem and clearly one that will not be solved overnight. Carpools and Jitneys are the only long term solution that really make sense. Towns that are not on the train line yet have a large number of commuters and don't have a jitney program yet, are doing a disservice to all. Livingston needs to get at least two jitneys (they don't have to use S. Orange) and W. Orange needs to expand their service as does S. Orange. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 245 Registered: 7-2003 |
Doesn’t NJ Transit have busses? Maybe they could beef up their routes. 1.50 each way would cost the same as a Parking spot with less hassle. Take a bus to the train. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 649 Registered: 4-2002 |
Brett: I thought about that too. As long as a person lives near a bus stop it is certainly a reasonable option. As a commuter, I will add that there is no such thing as a good commute, but some are better than others. The fewer transfers and the less time you have to spend waiting for public transportation makes a commute more bearable. That is why jitneys work better than regular buses and why having your own car is the preferred choice for most people. It is also why many are willing to pay a premium to park near the train station. |
