| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, Jan 10 2010, 10:44 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
 |
|
| The Cranbury Business Association has to back the project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 10 2010, 11:01 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Let’s get rid of the noise.
How can we get a 24 hour WAWA on RT 130 and Station Road. . It will be convenient for the residents, won't make noise at night for residents in town, can have ample parking and would draw sufficient number of people to make it a profitable
How can we get that done? |
Read the previous posts, Moron! They answer your question and spell out exactly what you need to know. Oh yeah, that's right, that was just "noise" from "apologists". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 10 2010, 11:28 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The Cranbury Business Association has to back the project. |
My family hopes they will look into it Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Home News Tribune
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 8:02 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
Check out this excerpt from Sunday's Home News Tribune about the high rate of pedestrian deaths on similar highways in our county. For those of you who insist there is nothing to worry about, check your facts...
CENTRAL JERSEY — Two major state highways running through Middlesex and Union counties once again rank among the top 10 most-dangerous roads for pedestrians in New Jersey, according a new report. Fourteen pedestrians were killed between 2006 and 2008 on stretches of Route 1 in Middlesex County and Union County, the study by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign found. Six were killed on Route 9 in Middlesex County during that time. Route 1 was tied with three other highways for second deadliest in the state, while Route 9 was tied for seventh, according to the report.
“They're arterial – wide with many traffic lights, fast-moving cares with a lot of retail destinations dotted along them,” said Kate Slevin, executive director Tri-State Transportation Campaign. “You don't necessarily have a lot of pedestrian amenities.”
For the full story, go to...
www.mycentraljersey.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 8:33 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
Let me understand the logic here. We should refuse to let convenience store businesses open in Cranbury because theoretically it could lead to pedestrian and vehicle traffic accidents? By that logic, should we prevent any business opening that is statistically associated with some kind of accident or crime? So no restuarants if there is a higher statistical likelihood of a fire, no shops if there is a high likelihood of robbery, etc?
Not to mention, shouldn't this be the concern of individuals whether they feel safe traveling to this store on foot? Are you actually legislating a nannu state where we have to protect people from their own bad decisions or behavior? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hyperbole
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 9:16 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Let me understand the logic here. We should refuse to let convenience store businesses open in Cranbury because theoretically it could lead to pedestrian and vehicle traffic accidents? By that logic, should we prevent any business opening that is statistically associated with some kind of accident or crime? So no restuarants if there is a higher statistical likelihood of a fire, no shops if there is a high likelihood of robbery, etc?
Not to mention, shouldn't this be the concern of individuals whether they feel safe traveling to this store on foot? Are you actually legislating a nannu state where we have to protect people from their own bad decisions or behavior? |
While I appreciate your flare for hyperbole, based on your "questions", it appears you are missing the point. People on this site have contended that we should not be concerned about pedestrians crossing highways to patronize retail businesses. The facts clearly indicate that there is reason to be concerned. 21 pedestrian deaths in 3 years (almost all in our county) is relevant data to the discussion. The data may not change your opinion about what to do, but let's at least know the facts before decisions are made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 10:04 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Let’s get rid of the noise.
How can we get a 24 hour WAWA on RT 130 and Station Road. . It will be convenient for the residents, won't make noise at night for residents in town, can have ample parking and would draw sufficient number of people to make it a profitable
How can we get that done? |
We don't understand why opening a conveniece store that would really benefit our community brings such "scare stuff" out. There is probably something else going on like "who owns the property on the corner of RT130 and Station Rd or something else other than opening a WAWA that's badly needed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 10:37 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| That a 24 hour Wawa is "badly needed" is a matter of opinion. Pedestrian deaths on similar Middlesex County highways, are facts, however "scary" you may find the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 12:43 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| It is pretty obvious that a coalition of anti WaWa forces including the existing downtown businesses and Nimby residents will have a huge influence on the Planning and Zoning boards. They will use this sentiment to block WaWa., |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ignoramus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 7:05 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | It is pretty obvious that a coalition of anti WaWa forces including the existing downtown businesses and Nimby residents will have a huge influence on the Planning and Zoning boards. They will use this sentiment to block WaWa., |
Actually, in this case NIMBY's are the people who support a Wawa as long as it isn't in their "backyard" (probably people like you).
The word "sentiment" is misused.
Wawa only has one capital "W".
Your statements are hyperbolic and seemingly somewhat paranoid. Just because the facts aren't what you want them to be doesn't mean there is a conspiracy against you.
Or is there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 7:09 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| I believe you need a definite article before "NIMBY's". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 7:13 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | It is pretty obvious that a coalition of anti WaWa forces including the existing downtown businesses and Nimby residents will have a huge influence on the Planning and Zoning boards. They will use this sentiment to block WaWa., |
I think you are right on target. We need a 24 hour WAWA or 7/11 on Rt 130. A year or two, someone had interest at the Station Rd site. I hope we can make that happen.
Forget about the last poster; he went after my comments too, calling me a moron and mixing me up with someoe else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moron
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 7:26 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
Forget about the last poster; he went after my comments too, calling me a moron and mixing me up with someoe else. |
Yes, clearly the last poster should have known which posts were yours. After all, you posted them all under the distinctive monicker "guest".
Perhaps you should post under the name " Moron", so I don't make that mistake again, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 7:38 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | It is pretty obvious that a coalition of anti WaWa forces including the existing downtown businesses and Nimby residents will have a huge influence on the Planning and Zoning boards. They will use this sentiment to block WaWa., |
And it appears delusional thinking also. It would still be nice to have a 24 hour WAWA or 7/11 type sore on Rt 130 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
webster
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 7:42 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I believe you need a definite article before "NIMBY's". |
NIMBY- someone who objects to siting something in their own neighborhood but does not object to it being sited elsewhere; an acronym for not in my backyard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 8:11 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Business |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | It is pretty obvious that a coalition of anti WaWa forces including the existing downtown businesses and Nimby residents will have a huge influence on the Planning and Zoning boards. They will use this sentiment to block WaWa., |
Boy, you're not kidding. Never seen anything like it before on this site |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
