February 29,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, In the desire to fit maximum spots on the Hudson St lot the current proposed design still proposed 5 stories (including roof level parking) while the height of the building has been reduced. This was achieved by reducing the height of every story. Residents hope the council does the right thing and does not compromise on safety in their attempt to fit maximum cars at one spot. Here is what happened at Short hills mall: Quote from the article:
“Then, more time passed because the ambulance was unable to fit under the parking deck’s ceiling, forcing first responders to roll a stretcher up an entrance ramp to Friedland.”
If they compromise with safety to get more spaces, it will be a shame. Dozens of old people who go to the church and currently park at the Hudson St surface lot, will be parking in this garage.
It’s really pretty important to be able to drive up. When someone has a heart attack on the third story of their home, that’s what they do — drive an ambulance up to the third floor.
1:24pm. silly argument, first responders take the elevator.
1:24. Really? Was that humor?
well would have to run .
No one is going to take their car to the third floor of that damn garage; Not shoppers for sure. Can you imagine some woman shopper going up on third floor of the garage. The problem is that the first two floors will be reserved for commuters and employees of businesses. The top floors for shoppers. The top floors won’t be used.
The town will have to hire valet service to park cars on top floors. It will cost a fortune in tax payers money. But that is only way you can get women shoppers to put their car up there.
Keeping the structure at 5 levels and taking a couple if inches off of each level to say that you “compromised” is laughable. Time for the Council majority and their apologists to stop whining about how they’ve already “compromised” and make the structure smaller. We’re talking about a 2 or 3 level garage that fits entirely within the footprint of the existing lot. It’s also time for the Council majority to do some real homework and show us how the thing will pay for itself. This is going to involve setting pricing for Ridgewood residents and out of town commuters and actually running the numbers. If the answer is that a smaller garage won’t pay for itself then go back to the drawing board. Just because these 3 want to get something, anything, done before they leave office is the wrong reason to move forward. Hang in the Mike & Susan – you have many people behind you.
@4:22 no garage will pay for itself. Any garage must be paid for by increased meter rates throughout the CBD, this has been discussed.
Yes, if garage does not fit into footprint of existing parking lot and cannot pay for itself, the council should utilize the ideas of Dave Slomin.
He has the best ideas , he is going after parking solutions in this historic charming CBD with a scalpel not a bulldozer. His ideas include spreading extra parking around the whole CBD in a variety of unobtrusive ways; easy to implement and maintain.
The bozos in the council use residents ideas for other matters, why not this important matter. Give Slomin a chance to make a plan and present it at a meeting. Many of his ideas cost nothing in many; and the ones that do cost the expense is negligible.
If Slomin’s ideas are so good why has he not gathered a small group of supporters and put together a comprehensive plan which gives details on how the plan works and why it makes more sense for Ridgewood. My hunch is when they really dig into the details they may find the plan is not feasible.
Go-carts and scooters only. Or people stealing supermarket carts and wanting to park them.
4:44 – Just because it has been discussed doesn’t make it a good idea
Maybe I’m puzzled. doesn’t the excess revenue generated by the parking meters go towards the town budget. So if the parking revenues go to paying the debt, won’t there be a deficit in the town budget that taxpayers will have to fund??
AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love it, build it big, and they will fill it up.if not we will make it into a new hub for park and ride, hummm, make more money.
12:03pm-
Current parking revenue surplus (above costs to cover enforcement and maintenance) is between $0 and $400k per year based on recent history. So if system doesn’t generate same surplus after debt payments, enforcement, and maintenance, then there would indeed be a deficit compared to current situation. The current financial projections for the system are that it would generate same surplus as it currently does. So it comes down to whether you believe project won’t run over budget and if system will generate revenue as projected.
John V 8:10am – They can increase this revenue without building the garage. The garage is not assuming new cars.
10:24am-
Good point, you’re right that they probably can raise increase most of the revenue without the garage. There are some “new” sources of revenue assumed (such as people parking at private lots that would now park in the garage), but not that many.