The town should have data from parkmobile. That should be the FIRST step to identity exactly how many spots are needed, instead of just pushing for a garage closer to the new proposed development by a company where Mayor’s wife used to work.
They are trying to use old data – 15 years ago to justify the demand. Many people say that you can always get the parking, you just need to know where to park. There are hidden spots. e.g. YMCA lot. The town can negotiate partnership with those private lots to provide parking. We can convert some streets to one way only to increase parking spaces. We can limit all street parking to 30 minutes and make it free – and all long term parking – longer than 30 minutes should be in these paid parking spaces not on the street – not in front of the shops. That will free up most lots and noone will have to circle around, if the street lots are free and are for LIMITED time – you park – do the business and go away.
Anyway – first order of business – IDENTIFY HOW MANY SPOTS ARE NEEDED – WITH A RECENT STUDY – WHICH CAPTURES DATA FOR MULTIPLE DAYS – NOT FOR ONE WEEK, NOT FOR A FEW HOURS. DON’T SPEND TAX PAYERS 15 MILLION DOLLARS ON YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA BY JUSTIFY IT USING FAKE REPORTS.
Ridgewood NJ , Maser Study Says Downtown Lots Half Full at Peak Times
-Delivered to village on or about October 16, 2015
-Vote on garage bond was November 3, 2015
-Study was first posted on old village website on 12/30/2015, 75 days after it was received.
-Councilwoman Knudsen and Councilman Sedon have stated in village council meetings they never saw the study before it was posted on 12/30/2015
-The 3 remaining council members have not answered, after much questioning by the public, when they saw the study.
Study says of the current Ridgewood parking load:
Page 11: This factor was deemed to be conservative for the purposes of our analysis as the surrounding surface lots were observed to be at approximately 50% of their capacity during peak hours and none of the surface lots appeared to approach their maximum capacity simultaneously. Thus, we justified that the site would operate at 50% capacity during both the AM and PM peak hours, or that a minimum of 206 of the proposed 412 parking spaces would be occupied during these times.
Why wasn’t this study shared with the public before the election, or before the first vote on the one and only design the village offered?
Why does Ridgewood need a garage?
Why does it need to be higher the neighboring Mt. Carmel Church?
Now, the village is pushing to have the county finance this garage. Who is it for if the surface lots are 50% full at peak?
JANUARY 15, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Urging council to keep trying on garage
To the editor:
I thank the Village Council for the time and effort spent trying to solve the parking issues in Ridgewood, but remain disheartened after the meeting on Jan. 6.
As Councilwoman Knudsen stated, the referendum was a vote for a parking garage on Hudson Street … not IN Hudson Street. Many residents were unaware of the size and scope of what they were being encouraged to vote for in the referendum.
Furthermore, aside from one vague, not widely circulated, and still anonymous flyer, there was very little public opposition. There were no “vote no” flyers all over town or on school property.
Would Mt. Carmel not have fully mobilized before the vote if they had any inkling the impact would be so great? Do you doubt that the 4,000 families of the parish would not have voted down the referendum had they realized there would be a 10-foot narrowing of Hudson and loss of precious on-street parking?
Overwhelmingly the residents who attended the meeting on Jan. 6 agreed to parking — even parking at that imperfect location — but not such a dramatic encroachment into the street, infringement on church life, and congestion to that area of the village in general.
As mentioned numerous times, the town while not legally required to follow its own rules and ordinances, should be expected to do so in all but emergency situations.
The word compromise was often used, but would be more easily achieved if a design was presented that stayed within the footprint of the current Hudson Street lot. Instead all of the options were variations on the same too big for the property design.
Mayor Aronsohn has stressed how important it is to get it right on parking, but isn’t that worth asking the architects to come back with some new ideas that a majority of interested parties can get behind before seeking funding from the county? We have waited decades for a solution and are nearly there, yet suddenly weeks are too long to wait for new drawings?
Lastly, while the financing scheme is not quite buttoned up, there was actually little disagreement around the costs of the garage. How sad then that the majority of council feels the need to seek financing elsewhere and hand the reins over to the county. By doing this, we would incur needless extra financing fees and perhaps ultimately lose some control over the project — design aesthetics, number of spaces dedicated to residents outside of Ridgewood, measures to take if meter revenue is below expectations, etc.
Can this really not be worked out without going that drastic, precedent setting route?
We have agreement on the need for parking, acceptance if not full agreement on location, and agreement on cost. There are a few months left for the council to figure this out together … I urge them to keep trying.
Ridgewood NJ, Russ Forenza suggestion at the January 6th meeting to use the Graydon Parking lot , Graydon Pool parking is a tremendous asset that is never used , shuttle buses , would be a simple easy solution . The idea would be to push all the employee parking into the Graydon lot .Yes we know it was tried before and true it failed .But now parking rates are significantly higher and we could allow employees and business owners to park either for Free or at a greatly reduced rate and shoppers could also park there at a reduced rate . Shuttle service would have to run continuously during the day at regular short intervals .
It has been reported on this blog many times over the past 6 years , that often the parking spaces are already full on streets like Oak Street by 8 am in the morning when no businesses are even opened . The Graydon parking along with a shuttle service would siphon off many full time employees , encourage them to spend money in town and be far more ecologically friendly than circling the village in cars looking for parking . Non compliant business could be fined ,both the employee for parking in the wrong place and the business owner .
Perhaps the Graydon lot could be used seasonally like shopping centers that don’t allow employee parking during seasonally peak periods . Garden State Plaza for instance bars employees from parking in certain areas during the Christmas rush.
Another idea is to also add more bicycle racks in the central business district so the down town would be more bike friendly . Parker’s at Graydon could bike back and forth during warmer weather if they desired and the shuttle should be made “bike friendly”.
JANUARY 15, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Troubles in Ridgewood
To the editor:
We have troubles right here in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and that rhymes with P and that stands for poor planning.
We voted yes on parking but we didn’t understand that all three garage designs would not fit on the site and would encroach on already narrow Hudson Street by 10 to 12 feet, creating huge traffic and safety issues. Mt. Carmel parishioners came out in large numbers at last week’s council meeting to express their concerns about the effects of such a structure on the church community along with many others with strong objections to the garage proposals.
We live in a small town. I believe we are a mile square which makes all of us close neighbors and thereby connected. My neighbor’s problems are mine. I don’t want a facility that hurts Mt. Carmel.
I don’t want a large baseball field that will result in the removal of many acres of woods, which is the home of at least one endangered species. Residents are worried about noise and particle pollution due to their close proximity to Route 17.
I believe we must reduce the 35 units per acre density changes in the CBD to a more manageable 22-24 up from 12.
Habernickel Park neighbors need to have their traffic and safety concerns addressed. We all travel down Hillcrest Avenue and understand the problems. My fellow residents’ issues are mine.
This is our village. We elected our council members to represent us. I thought that meant they would also listen to us and when possible, act accordingly. I see all of our issues bring resolved with some form of compromise.
We would all benefit from that approach and in the process, we wouldn’t hurt our neighbors or in the long run, ourselves.
JANUARY 14, 2016 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2016, 3:17 PM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Village Council decided this week to go forward with multifamily housing impact studies on education, municipal planning, fiscal impact and traffic, hiring three firms to complete the work.
Ross Haber Associates (education), RBA Group (traffic) and BFJ Planning/Urbanomics (fiscal and municipal planning) were selected for the studies.
A special public meeting was held in the Benjamin Franklin Middle School auditorium on Tuesday, and featured interviews with five consulting firms.
Presentations
Ross Haber Associates recently conducted a study for the Ridgewood Board of Education on the feasibility of full-day kindergarten.
Haber explained that his studies for the village would be focused on what financial impact the new additions would have on Ridgewood schools.
“Would these new students in any way, shape or form impact the budget?” he asked. “Would it require the hiring of new staff? Might the expansion include construction in the schools if needed? Would you need additional crossing guards?
“This is not to say that any of these things are going to happen,” Haber said, “this is to say these things could happen.”
file photo by Boyd Loving SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING – RIDGEWOOD MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING – JANUARY 12TH
January 14,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog with input from several readers
Ridgewood NJ , the Special Public Meeting on high density multi family housing was attended by 30-35 residents attended who heard proposals for studies from five groups as follows:
1. Heyer, Gruel & Associates – who could do studies on the fiscal and school impacts
2. Maser Consuting – traffic study
3. Ross Haber Associates – school impact
4. The RBA Group – traffic study
5. BFJ Planning/Urbanomics – fiscal, infrastructure, school, and traffic
Overall the meeting was peaceful. The mayor as usual did not answer all the questions and asked some residents “your five minutes are up” when they questioned him, though they still had time, and answered questions from some others who were appreciating his efforts.
Mayor Aronsohn could not resist poking residents making a sarcastic remark about the “overflow crowd,” – stating that BF had been selected to handle a large crowd, his comment discounted the fact that 30-35 residents had come out. Which under normal circumstances would be a decent sized crowd .
The Village had two police officers present through the entire meeting, at what cost? It was also unclear whether they were guarding the Council members , or the public since threats were made from hostile council members to the public?
There were five presentations. 2 for school, 2 for traffic and one for everything. The firm which presented everything also included impact on schools and traffic. So, for schools and traffic, 3 options each were presented. For the other two impact studies, only one option was presented BFJ/Urbananomics.
The Village Manager Roberta Schoenfield stated that there had not been an RFP, that there did not need to be for this. Thus we only wound up with ONE infrastructure group, thus no basis for comparison.
Council Women Hauck asked questions of one of the contractors regarding how to discredit residents who disagree with the results of a study.
Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli stated that the public called for experts, and then goes ahead and questions the expertise of the experts, implying that residents should not ask any questions about how any of the proposed studies should be done.
The council seemed to agree informally to go with BFJ for the fiscal, infrastructure and school but RBA for traffic. This was not a vote and it will be discussed further. RBA’s description of their traffic study indicated that would use video technology at 10 intersections, considering the cars as well as the pedestrians and bicycles at each. The tubes-in-the-road technology is outdated and only captures vehicles. RBA also indicated that any data from studies more than 3 years old is basically useless.
They liked the fact that BFJ had the ability to do all the studies and work with each other in-house, but their traffic proposal was weak.
Roberta stated that our in-house experts are quite capable of doing some of these studies .During the initial comments the village manager mentioned that she wanted to use them as hub where traffic and school consultant will feed into them, but she also mentioned that she did not like their pricing for data collection and she wanted them to use already collected data. When one resident asked why was only one firm invited for the other two impact studies, the village manager responded that we may not even go with them and we may do those in house to save money.
It clearly sounded like the village manager doesn’t want an outside consultant to be looking at the water, fire, police, fiscal stuff closely and wants to keep that part to herself ie internally.
Eleven residents made comments, paraphrased:
The VC was thanked for changing the date of the meeting from Friday to Tuesday
Much concern about the traffic studies – one day, two days, a week, what if a snowstorm, how good a picture would any traffic study actually produce
Questions about the RUSH – why not slow down with all of this.
Questions about complying with COAH.
Questions about what was going on with Kensington Assisted Living
Ridgewood NJ , Discrepancies in the interpretative statement and contradictory statements made by Various Council members served only to confuse voters and obfuscate the council majority’s intentions.
Readers have echoed “The electorate was also PROMISED that the sign and scale could be negotiated. The electorate was lied to and misled. Furthermore, there is not disagreement on funding so why go to BCIA? only to get the design the three want…how is that reasonable??”
Other readers repeated the sentiment, “the electorate voted for a garage in a “Non-Binding Referendum”.The actual vote for the bond failed 3-2. That was the only vote that was binding. ”
While most who spoke at the Council meeting on January 6th , believed there was some measures were needed to ease peak parking issues in the Central Business District (CBD) most of the 100 plus people who showed at the meeting came to the conclusion that a super sized garage was an over kill.
The crux of the misinformation issue circled around the fact that the garage is built into Hudson street . Jetting out at least 10 feet into the street. That is not building a garage on the lot. Many felt they voted for a garage on the lot. Not street.
While others thought that the council majority , “grossly and intentionally withheld the information that it was on the street.” While other who spoke cited example after example where council members contradicted each other or gave what was later on perceived as misleading information .
The people did vote for a garage just not one that changes Hudson Street so profoundly and dwarfs Mount Carmel. We were led to believe the design and size were still up for discussion. Many suggestions at the meeting called for additional parking venues closer to the center of town, refiguring of streets and relining of current spaces. Financial feasibility is important but for many it is more about traffic concerns, safety and if the structure will be neighborhood and user friendly. I only saw impassioned speakers being very civil but I did see a council member completely lose it. People hate to be lectured on civility by people who often behave uncivilly. It is really hard to stand up at a meeting and speak. It is a nerve racking experience that takes many of us out of our comfort zone. I admire those that do. One speaking out represents 20 who feel similarly but didn’t. A 100 people speaking out is more like a mandate. I don’t understand why the council majority would not be guided by that.
Please note that every single person who comes to meetings and speaks at the mic is absolutely not anonymous, and they are on the front line. Some of these people get attacked verbally by people from the dais and also from other residents. Dana Glazer was polite and soft spoken. He did not accuse Albert of anything…..he made a general observation to all five council meetings that he could not understand what the rush was with this project, and he wondered aloud if the upcoming election was a factor. Albert in his great cloud of ego started shouting and making threats, it was horrible and it was frightening to behold. An elected official absolutely does not have the right to volley off threats from the dais, or for that matter at any time. Yes, elected officials should maintain their cool, as most do, most especially in the face of something as benign as Dana Glazer’s calm and thoughtful presentation. For sure they should not be issuing threats and accusing people of being stalkers.
A garage that will extend into Hudson street by 10 feet and dwarf Mount Carmel should not be built. All 3 options do just that. Also our mayor kept saying questions would be answered after all speakers made their statements. This did not happen. but of all the things that happened the worst and most frightening was Albert’s vcomplete loss of control directing his anger at Mr. Glazer. The gentleman was speaking from emotion as he had just witnessed the previous speaker who was voicing her concerns in a heartfelt manner. All totally acceptable. Mr. Glazer was at a loss as to why the council majority was pushing forward regardless of public opinion. He asked if this was due to the upcoming elections. We all think that this may be part of it. The deputy mayor was so angry, I actually thought the police might be called. It also sounded threatening and that is very serious. We’ have to hear about being civil and not applauding regularly. I truly am appalled that the mayor runs civility meetings. But to have an elected official be the biggest offender is most troubling. A public apology isn’t enough. He needs to step down.
JANUARY 8, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Planned garage is too big
To the editor:
My wife and I attended a meeting last week at Mount Carmel Church concerning the proposed garage on Hudson St.
I have been in favor of a structure at the site but was dismayed to see the overall size of the structure. It is massive. If I, as a private individual proposed a structure that size for that lot, the council would laugh at me. People would be up in arms.
I think that if the council informs residents of the size of the structure, they will be up in arms. It will permanently change the downtown area.
I also don’t understand the rationale behind the proposed traffic flow. It, aside from being a problem for Mt. Carmel, seems to me to be a disaster in the making. It will require the traffic to flow from Broad Street with the majority of vehicles making a left onto Hudson. It will also funnel the exiting vehicles to nowhere land since at the end of Hudson they will have the choice of making a left toward Ridgewood Avenue or a right onto Prospect.
I assume a traffic light will have to be put at the Hudson-Prospect intersection since the traffic from the park area will be head on to the Hudson Street traffic. Not a pretty picture.
Mayor Aronsohn, at the meeting, kept pointing to the referendum as a seal of approval for the garage as proposed. In my view, and probably most of those who voted for it, he received an approval of a garage on the site, not something so big it will tower over the neighborhood.
If the garage has to be this big to be financially viable, then maybe the council needs to rethink its location. The site at Walnut Street would be more appropriate. It is a larger site, has access to Franklin Avenue, a road that could better handle the traffic, and because of the larger site, it could be built lower so the structure would not be so imposing.
In closing I would ask the council to reconsider the size and site of the structure. At the very least, delay going forward until a proper traffic study is undertaken as has been proposed.
The council represents all the residents of Ridgewood, not just the 3,000 who voted for a garage.
The business owner speaking here, Ed Sullivan, owner of 17-29 Chestnut St in the Village, spent 5 minutes citing a 1967 traffic study and then telling residents their taxes were too low.
Impressive strategy… if you want to make sure no one ever frequents your properties again.
Referencing data from 1967 is interesting. But not relevant. Not a single reference to the Internet which of course wasn’t publicly available in ’67. The Internet, as we know now, changed everything for businesses that used to rely on people going into a store and purchasing something.
In person shopping is an anachronism.
The taxpayers (read: homeowners) should not have to bear any burden associated with failing businesses.
Ed’s wrong…things have drastically changed in 48+ years.
Ridgewood NJ, Questions arise over why the Traffic Study for Hudson Street Parking Deck was not released until after the vote , when some of the Village Council and and the Village manager had access to this key piece of information in October . While both Councilman Michael Sedon and Council Women Susan Knudsen both saw the Masters study when the public viewed it .
According to the Village Manager it was merely an oversight by the Village for not posting it sooner . While the 3 amigos , Paul ,Gwen and Albert stalled in their answer to when the study was available to them , Mike and Susan seemed to indicate they only saw the study recently.
The big dust-up came resident Dana Glazer pushed the issue and Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli as well as Gwen Hauck took offence at the implication . The Village attorney chimed in with a “you can say what you want to the council as long as you agree with them ” ordinance to defuse the tension.
The omission whether it was intentional or not once again brings up the old issue of the Village’s inability to manage large scale projects and effectively communicate with residents . A key piece of information seems to be left out of the mix ,in the race to aggrandize egos and leaves many residents wondering are we once again providing a solution in search of a problem .
Ridgewood NJ, January – December 2016 Ridgewood Parking Permits – RPP Click Here for information and details. RPPs will be sold each business day from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. For both new and renewal RPPs, please bring a driver’s license, showing your Ridgewood address, and the registration(s) for the car(s) you wish to register. In addition, annual Ridgewood Resident Parking Stickers are available for free, which allow residents to park at the train station and will also be given as part of the RPP package. In order to obtain a Ridgewood Resident Parking Sticker (both new and renewal), please bring a driver’s license, showing your Ridgewood address, and the registration(s) for the car(s) you wish to register.
As many of you have likely read, Mayor Aronsohn yesterday proposed that the traffic garage be altered to the smallest of the three options.
On the surface, this seems like a generous compromise and that he is listening to the needs of Mount Carmel and the rest of us in town but I am concerned that he is still not hearing us.
Let me explain:
1) The footprint for the smallest proposed garage is the same as the biggest. More than anything, this is the most unseen problem. The proposed garage will in essence extend nearly to the center mark on the center line of Hudson street. As resident Rob Kotch put it today, “It’s like trying to fit an elephant into a VW bug.” So, the width is of equal concern as the height. This will affect traffic in that area in a major way, particularly with regard to the parishioners of Mount Carmel.
2) The only traffic study already commissioned by the town was conducted between 7-9am and 3-6pm on the same day in October. The study itself states: “We recommend that an analysis be performed to incorporate the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue into our traffic model as these intersections are already operating at capacity and may affect access to the surrounding land uses. We recommend that a study be performed to include Passaic Street as Hudson Street and Passaic Street operate as a pair within the roadway network…It is also our opinion that the study should include the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue as these intersections are operating near capacity and have a noticeable effect upon traffic.”
In other words, more study is needed to do this properly, which of course brings us to–
3) On September 30th, the Village Council voted in favor of doing a comprehensive traffic study that specifically includes the parking garage. It is essential we make sure the council follows through with this particular study and do so before anything further is done with the proposed garage.
