Author	Message
anon-26o4	Posted: Sat, Jul 21 2012, 8:54 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay Agreed. This is a "no-brainer" that should have been resolved when the road was reconstructed. That said, I urge the TC to take a comprehendsive look at pedestrian safety throughout the village. May not be as easy or personally important to some, but it is the right thing to do for the long term value of the village.
Good job TC-6103	Posted: Thu, Jul 19 2012, 6:15 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay Anon-1pr0 wrote: For what it's worth, we hope they will finish the sidewalks along Old Trenton, regardless of the material... We'll even take gravel... Seems to us like the route is 80% there to connect so many houses to town - and it would bring such joy for the families to be able to bike in! I agree. I am glad to see the TC take the initiative on this. Connecting Shadow Oaks and the village is a great idea, especially if we don't have to pay extra for it.
anon-0n08	Posted: Wed, Jul 18 2012, 9:55 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay The roadwork they did on Old Trenton has made it more dangerous for pedestrians that it was before. At least before one could walk, jog or bike along the shoulder of the road where the sidewalk was missing to bridge the gap, because there was a wide shoulder. I wouldn’t let me kids do it without supervision, but felt okay doing it with them. Now the shoulder is narrower everywhere but where it nears the cross streets it completely disappears and there are pinch points where cars and truck whiz right by you a couple feet away at 40+ MPH. It is completely unsafe and after trying it a couple times we won’t even let our kids do it with our supervision. The County made the road less safe for non-vehicle use.
Read-8q9r	Posted: Wed, Jul 18 2012, 8:28 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay From above Quote: You seem to be confusing two totally unrelated projects. Please re-read the original letter posted here. I'll make it easier by re-pasting the relevant part here: "We applied for and received a $250,000 grant to install brick sidewalks in the business district and help beautify the downtown, commencing this fall. To improve pedestrian access in Cranbury, we applied for a grant to install sidewalks connecting Shadow Oaks to the downtown business district. If the grant is received, our residents in Shadow Oaks will be able to safely walk downtown and for those in town to walk to friends’ homes in Shadow Oaks and the Swim Club." Two separate paragraphs. First: $250K grant to install a brick sidewalk in the business district on Main Street. This one has been secured. Second, unrelated: An unspecified amount of $ to finish the sidewalk along Old Trenton to connect the existing sidewalk that ends shortly after Liedtke with the existing sidewalk that exists from the annex of Shadow Oaks through to the Swim Club beyond the park. This one is pending, as of the date of the letter. [/quote]
anon-97on	Posted: Wed, Jul 18 2012, 7:59 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay BM-273s wrote: I do not think the state shall pay for sidewalks into town. It is a waste of taxpayers money. What they have now is sufficient. LOL at this statement. First, the idea that the state or county don’t spend money when it might be a “waste” is laughable. They do this all the time. Witness all the work they did on Old Trenton which no one was asking for and was completely unnecessary. Yet the one useful thing they could have done at a tiny fraction of the cost with the finishing of the missing sidewalk segment they didn’t do. Second, saying what is there now is “sufficient” is like saying that if you build two ends of a bridge and leave out the middle the bridge is “sufficient” as-is. Without finishing the missing sidewalk segment what is already there is pointless – it is currently a sidewalk to nowhere. You can argue that we’re having hard times and shouldn’t spend any money. But to argue that what we have is “sufficient” just makes you look silly. What we have now is useless.
Anon-1pr0	Posted: Tue, Jul 17 2012, 9:41 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay For what it's worth, we hope they will finish the sidewalks along Old Trenton, regardless of the material... We'll even take gravel... Seems to us like the route is 80% there to connect so many houses to town - and it would bring such joy for the families to be able to bike in!
BM-273s	Posted: Sun, Jul 15 2012, 4:35 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay I do not think the state shall pay for sidewalks into town. It is a waste of taxpayers money. What they have now is sufficient.
anon-26o4	Posted: Tue, Jul 10 2012, 2:33 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay How can one find out more specific information about what exactly this proposal includes? Is there a map/schematic of the proposed side-walks (both downtown and to the Swim Club)?
ok-8p94	Posted: Mon, Jul 9 2012, 1:24 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay publius-27p1 wrote: What I mean to say is: Brick is nice IN TOWN. But, use concrete connecting from Main St. to Swim Club. YES? No where, except on this board was it ever suggested to have brick sidewalks on Old Trenton Road. It has always been concrete.
publius-27p1	Posted: Mon, Jul 9 2012, 12:40 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay What I mean to say is: Brick is nice IN TOWN. But, use concrete connecting from Main St. to Swim Club. YES?
publius-27p1	Posted: Mon, Jul 9 2012, 12:39 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay Make it a concrete walkway. Brick is too expensive. Use the difference elsewhere. NO?
anon-q0q5	Posted: Fri, Jul 6 2012, 9:23 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for confusing the two. That makes more sense.
anon-97on	Posted: Thu, Jul 5 2012, 8:04 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay anon-14q1 wrote: If it's less than a quarter mile and is cement (brick was mentioned here), why is it costing a quarter of a million dollars? That's about $200 per linear foot. I paid about $40 per linear foot for a cement sidewalk at my house in Cranbury a few years ago. Something isn't adding up or we're getting ripped off. You seem to be confusing two totally unrelated projects. Please re-read the original letter posted here. I'll make it easier by re-pasting the relevant part here: "We applied for and received a $250,000 grant to install brick sidewalks in the business district and help beautify the downtown, commencing this fall. To improve pedestrian access in Cranbury, we applied for a grant to install sidewalks connecting Shadow Oaks to the downtown business district. If the grant is received, our residents in Shadow Oaks will be able to safely walk downtown and for those in town to walk to friends’ homes in Shadow Oaks and the Swim Club." Two separate paragraphs. First: $250K grant to install a brick sidewalk in the business district on Main Street. This one has been secured. Second, unrelated: An unspecified amount of $ to finish the sidewalk along Old Trenton to connect the existing sidewalk that ends shortly after Liedtke with the existing sidewalk that exists from the annex of Shadow Oaks through to the Swim Club beyond the park. This one is pending, as of the date of the letter.
Projects-p18p	Posted: Thu, Jul 5 2012, 8:04 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay You are confusing projects. The 250k applies to downtown. The state awarded Cranbury 250k to install brick sidewalks downtown. The town applied for a separate grant to connect the concrete sidewalks to each other on old Trenton Rd so there will be a solid sidewalk from Shadow Oaks to town. This grant may never even get awarded. If you drive from old Trenton rd and S Main to the swim club I would bet your odometer is well under 2 miles. So even if there were no sidewalks you wouldn't get 3 miles. However, because there are some sidewalks the distance is smaller and hopefully will appear more attractive to the state as a result.
anon-14q1	Posted: Thu, Jul 5 2012, 7:21 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay If it's less than a quarter mile and is cement (brick was mentioned here), why is it costing a quarter of a million dollars? That's about $200 per linear foot. I paid about $40 per linear foot for a cement sidewalk at my house in Cranbury a few years ago. Something isn't adding up or we're getting ripped off.
ok-8p94	Posted: Wed, Jul 4 2012, 12:36 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Letter from Dave and Jay anon-554o wrote: anon-97on wrote: anon-554o wrote: I think this issue needs to go to vote. Maybe there is a good reason it hasn't been acted on in 25 years. There is a sidewalk today, you just need to cross the street. This is a huge waste of money. Address plainsborough road first- we have already spent public money on preserved/ park space there- how about we provide a way to get there! "plainsborough road" LOL I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't live in either neighborhood, but there is not a continuous sidewalk along Old Trenton now. You should be able to get from the park to town. It's silly the County spent all that money on the needless roadwork but didn't address this. If it's so silly, why is there a parking lot at the park? Not every development and public place needs to have a walking path to town. If anything is silly, it's a 3 mile brick walking path. Why are we spending such a large amount of our resources (township or those secured from the state) on old Trenton road? And thanks for the spell check, teach, but unfortunately that doesn't make your point any stronger. And to Benjamin Franklin below (again, doesn't help your point)- the vote would be on which of 2 or 3 possible such projects to use such money on. Point being to prevent lobbying from shadow oaks from draining any more of our resources (internally or externally generated) on old Trenton road. Next we will be be asked to re-grade the entire town to prevent flooding (an issue raised here before) on old trenton so the kids don't drown on their voyage to town. There are other places where it would benefit resident safety and the aesthetics of the town- see the letter written regarding plainsboro road for example. ok let us just try to get our facts straight. There is no brick sidewalk proposed for Old Trenton Road. The sidewalk proposed on Old Trenton Road is not 3 miles. It may be less than a quarter mile. It merely connects existing sidewalks. Since Shadow Oaks was built we have been trying to connect it to town. It is fine that you disagree with that idea. Realize however, you are in a small minority and every TC since the 80's (that includes both Republican and Democratic let committees)has been trying to get a sidewalk or path to connect Shadow Oaks. I think the reason they decided to put a sidewalk on OTR instead of Plainsboro road is one of simple demographics. There are more people connected for a given length of sidewalk. 400 yards of sidewalk on OTR connects two shadow oaks neighborhoods to town. On Plainsboro Road at least a Mile of sidewalk would be needed to get to Petty Road, and Petty Road has no sidewalks to connect.