Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="anon-0592"]This is insane! Neither section complies with state law for speed limits. After the ridiculous change on old Trenton road you would think tc members would have learned a lesson about making changes to please a minorty. Meanwhile looking like fools to the majority.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
anon-n0rr
Posted: Sat, Oct 12 2024, 2:34 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
You must be uninformed. The county is the only one who legally can lower a speed limit. The speed limit in Old Trenton Rosd was lowered to the current speed by the county and the expanded it at the same time.
anon-3p8s
Posted: Tue, Oct 1 2024, 6:16 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-q420 wrote:
anon-3p8s wrote:
Nearly 10 years later and what a joke this is. The problem never was the areas they lowered. It’s always the 25 zones. The biggest joke is the 35 mph limit on Old Trenton road. Funny how shadow oaks residents go 50 mph while very few lived here when it was 50 mph. It’s obvious the reason nobody goes 35 is the speed limit on that road is way to low.
The county didn’t lower the speed limit. It was our inept township council members of 2010. You must be new.
Complain to Middlesex County. You are a joke for complaining here when you KNOW that it's a county road
anon-q420
Posted: Mon, Sep 23 2024, 3:10 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-3p8s wrote:
Nearly 10 years later and what a joke this is. The problem never was the areas they lowered. It’s always the 25 zones. The biggest joke is the 35 mph limit on Old Trenton road. Funny how shadow oaks residents go 50 mph while very few lived here when it was 50 mph. It’s obvious the reason nobody goes 35 is the speed limit on that road is way to low.
Complain to Middlesex County. You are a joke for complaining here when you KNOW that it's a county road
anon-3p8s
Posted: Sun, Sep 8 2024, 3:09 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
Nearly 10 years later and what a joke this is. The problem never was the areas they lowered. It’s always the 25 zones. The biggest joke is the 35 mph limit on Old Trenton road. Funny how shadow oaks residents go 50 mph while very few lived here when it was 50 mph. It’s obvious the reason nobody goes 35 is the speed limit on that road is way to low.
anon-0592
Posted: Fri, Sep 18 2015, 3:22 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
claudeworld wrote:
Huh-4618 wrote:
I've noticed less cars speeding now that the signs have been installed! Can anybody tell me if the new signs have reduced the number of tickets issued??
Unfortunately the out-of-town tailgaters are getting worse but overall new signs and speed limits are major improvement
What improvement? Speed limits in Cranbury are just like the national speed limit of 55 mph. A joke. Cranbury neck old Trenton rd , and Plainsboro rd the average speed is most likely still around 50 mph. I would think this council would have had more common sense, now Cranbury is the laughing stock of the area. Here's an idea, have the cops enforce the limits in the 25 mph residential areas, like every other town in the country. Don't lower speed limits in areas that don't warrant it, when it's a fact they will be ignored. Common sense people.
anon-sp0n
Posted: Mon, Sep 14 2015, 1:08 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
They won't even tell you how many tickets were issued before the signs so don't hold your breath they will say how many since. Besides, they can only issue tickets when they patrol that street for speeding which is rare, so ticket count doesn't really correlate to speeding rate before or after.
claudeworld
Posted: Sun, Sep 13 2015, 11:39 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
Huh-4618 wrote:
I've noticed less cars speeding now that the signs have been installed! Can anybody tell me if the new signs have reduced the number of tickets issued??
Unfortunately the out-of-town tailgaters are getting worse but overall new signs and speed limits are major improvement
anon-np42
Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2015, 12:00 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-ppq7 wrote:
Quote:
There are at least a dozen people on this topic who have questioned this action or asked for the information. What is served by pretending its just one?
Because one can pose as different people by posting from different IP addresses. Anonymous one posing as a dozen? We don't know.
That is one reason why I really wish the township committee would not regard this forum as a way to gather legitimate information or conduct any official business.
So this entire conversation on both side could be two people. Or one person arguing with him/herself.
anon-ppq7
Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2015, 11:24 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
Quote:
There are at least a dozen people on this topic who have questioned this action or asked for the information. What is served by pretending its just one?
Because one can pose as different people by posting from different IP addresses. Anonymous one posing as a dozen? We don't know.
That is one reason why I really wish the township committee would not regard this forum as a way to gather legitimate information or conduct any official business.
anon-np42
Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2015, 9:50 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-5651 wrote:
anon-np42 wrote:
anon-5651 wrote:
anon-np42 wrote:
Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here.
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process.
The didn't just post notices. They posted plans and drawings. It was incredibly easy for them to do. Why not do it for this? Why intentionally make it hard to get the data and info that was allegedly provided at the meeting, though I have yet to find anyone who can confirm that and the details are not in the minutes?
And they didn't do anything like the notice they have done on this re-development. They did the minimum they are legally required to.
You continue to be under the impression that if someone isn't available to attend one particular meeting all their rights are forfeit. Where do you get this strange notion? And why would we want a process that does the minimum legally allowed to try and fast track a decision through on a change to something that has been in pace for decades? What drove that? And why would our public officials come here to post, multiple times, then intentionally decline to provide any of this allegedly public information?
You are making excuses because you are satisfied that the ends justified the means, so you don't mind the poor process. And you don't want answers to the uncomfortable questions about why they didn't do a proper study, why they excluded their resident traffic expert from the process, why they are reluctantly to answer straight forward questions about how many tickets were issues, etc.
I'm sure there is an issue that will matter to you, and they you will care when corners are cut, when answers are evaded. Fortunately for both of us we have the rights to our opinions whether you like it or not.
You can keep making excuses in lieu of providing simple facts. And others will keep calling it out.
People went to a meeting and asked. No one has done that for this issue. Per the Mayor no one has contacted them.
No one is saying your rights are void. We're saying follow the rules and go to town hall.
You don't have a right to have answers here. Further, i hope they don't given you keep questioning their ethics. Maybe that is why they are not responding to you. You are the only one saying a study or proper review was not done, but won't ask town hall so you have proof.
Maybe ignoring posts like this will bring back the civil tone this board used to have.
There are at least a dozen people on this topic who have questioned this action or asked for the information. What is served by pretending its just one?
All posters like you are doing is trying to distract from the real issue. Let's turn this into a discussion about ethics or civility and not pay attention to the simple, logical request to share public information. These requests for information started because some early posters on this topic made assertions about the change being based on some facts that are simply not in evidence including that concerted attempts to regulate the 25 MPH zone with speeding tickets was ineffective. Therefore sharing the data on how many speeding tickets were issued becomes directly relevant to assessment of that reasoning. It's perfectly reasonable to want to see evidence that the people making the decision reviewed and confirmed that a material number of tickets were issued in this zone as otherwise increasing the effort to do so would have been a reasonable precursor to the more aggressive action of changing the speed further up the road. And it's perfectly reasonable to ask why they decided to pay someone less qualified than the existing Township traffic consultant to assess a traffic-related matter. Would you consider it reasonable for them to make a decision on the structural integrity of the Main Street bridge by consulting the Township attorney but not the engineer?
anon-5651
Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 10:12 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-np42 wrote:
anon-5651 wrote:
anon-np42 wrote:
Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here.
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process.
The didn't just post notices. They posted plans and drawings. It was incredibly easy for them to do. Why not do it for this? Why intentionally make it hard to get the data and info that was allegedly provided at the meeting, though I have yet to find anyone who can confirm that and the details are not in the minutes?
And they didn't do anything like the notice they have done on this re-development. They did the minimum they are legally required to.
You continue to be under the impression that if someone isn't available to attend one particular meeting all their rights are forfeit. Where do you get this strange notion? And why would we want a process that does the minimum legally allowed to try and fast track a decision through on a change to something that has been in pace for decades? What drove that? And why would our public officials come here to post, multiple times, then intentionally decline to provide any of this allegedly public information?
You are making excuses because you are satisfied that the ends justified the means, so you don't mind the poor process. And you don't want answers to the uncomfortable questions about why they didn't do a proper study, why they excluded their resident traffic expert from the process, why they are reluctantly to answer straight forward questions about how many tickets were issues, etc.
I'm sure there is an issue that will matter to you, and they you will care when corners are cut, when answers are evaded. Fortunately for both of us we have the rights to our opinions whether you like it or not.
You can keep making excuses in lieu of providing simple facts. And others will keep calling it out.
People went to a meeting and asked. No one has done that for this issue. Per the Mayor no one has contacted them.
No one is saying your rights are void. We're saying follow the rules and go to town hall.
You don't have a right to have answers here. Further, i hope they don't given you keep questioning their ethics. Maybe that is why they are not responding to you. You are the only one saying a study or proper review was not done, but won't ask town hall so you have proof.
Maybe ignoring posts like this will bring back the civil tone this board used to have.
anon-np42
Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 9:19 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-0o99 wrote:
This is not the official Cranbury Township website.
Why would the township want to come on here to comment on this anonymous hateful board.
I don't know, ask Mayor Taylor who did just that earlier in this very topic. Or ask any of the current TC members except Glenn Johnson who have all done so in the past. And even Johnson did once to respond to comments about him. But the rest have all regularly used this site to communicate on official issues.
And who said they had to use this site? It's been said at least a dozen times in this topic that they could use the official Cranbury Township site. And its been proven they can easily add links and documents to that site as they recently did with the redevelopment.
anon-0o99
Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 6:54 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
This is not the official Cranbury Township website.
Why would the township want to come on here to comment on this anonymous hateful board.
anon-np42
Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 6:52 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-5651 wrote:
anon-np42 wrote:
Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here.
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process.
The didn't just post notices. They posted plans and drawings. It was incredibly easy for them to do. Why not do it for this? Why intentionally make it hard to get the data and info that was allegedly provided at the meeting, though I have yet to find anyone who can confirm that and the details are not in the minutes?
And they didn't do anything like the notice they have done on this re-development. They did the minimum they are legally required to.
You continue to be under the impression that if someone isn't available to attend one particular meeting all their rights are forfeit. Where do you get this strange notion? And why would we want a process that does the minimum legally allowed to try and fast track a decision through on a change to something that has been in pace for decades? What drove that? And why would our public officials come here to post, multiple times, then intentionally decline to provide any of this allegedly public information?
You are making excuses because you are satisfied that the ends justified the means, so you don't mind the poor process. And you don't want answers to the uncomfortable questions about why they didn't do a proper study, why they excluded their resident traffic expert from the process, why they are reluctantly to answer straight forward questions about how many tickets were issues, etc.
I'm sure there is an issue that will matter to you, and they you will care when corners are cut, when answers are evaded. Fortunately for both of us we have the rights to our opinions whether you like it or not.
You can keep making excuses in lieu of providing simple facts. And others will keep calling it out.
anon-5651
Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 5:27 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
anon-np42 wrote:
Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here.
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process.
anon-np42
Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 4:48 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Speed limits
Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here.