Who thought it was a good idea to propose changing to one way traffic on Maplewood Ave in the village?

A little research:

https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/2009/n090923a.pdf

From the above:

D. Parking and Traffic Complaints where a Private Citizen is the Complaining Witness.

 Whenever any person prepares a complaint, the municipal court administrator or deputy court administrator shall accept that complaint for filing, pursuant to R. 7:2-1(b). However, although private citizens may make and sign complaints, they are not authorized by law to issue process (the summons). As a result, in all private citizen complaints, a judicial officer must make a probable cause determination as to the issuance of process, pursuant to R. 7:2-2(a)(1). Only this Special Form is to be used when a private citizen is the complaining witness for complaints charging any parking or traffic offense. In all other private citizen initiated complaints, either this Special Form or the appropriate CDR form is to be utilized.

On moving violations, they’ll say that if they didn’t see it then they can’t write the ticket, but you could file a complaint.  On parking violations I’m sure it would be similar.  

And there’s no reason I can think of why they can’t enforce far, far more aggressively in town.  Understand it puts PD in a tough spot, and not all like to write up residents for “minor” traffic stuff vs emphatically calling folks out, but it has to happen. 

I really don't think too many of us are going to want our name on a complaint sworn out against other townsfolk.  I'm pretty sure that would be a good way to make an enemy.  It's not our job to enforce the law.  That's why we have a police force.

ctrzaska said:
On moving violations, they’ll say that if they didn’t see it then they can’t write the ticket, but you could file a complaint.  On parking violations I’m sure it would be similar.  


And there’s no reason I can think of why they can’t enforce far, far more aggressively in town.  Understand it puts PD in a tough spot, and not all like to write up residents for “minor” traffic stuff vs emphatically calling folks out, but it has to happen. 

 How about a stern warning on a first offense?  Then the township keeps a record of the reason for the traffic stop.  A second offense gets a ticket, even if it's for minor offense.  Only completely unreasonable people would resent a ticket if they got off without one the first time.

This appears to be an unusual workaround to the problem of relocating the Post Office.  As I use the Post Office, I drive south on Maplewood Ave. and hope for a parking space, do my business in a few minutes, then want to drive north on MA, but there is no easy turnaround.  The solution is to drive up north on Lenox Terr. (over rough pavement), right on Ridgewood, then down Baker to the intersection of MA again and left again at this awkward intersection. This is inconvenient.

My workaround I use is to U-Turn in the intersection of Baker and Lenox, dangerous and illegal, but I'm going north on MA again.  Not recommended.

This proposed solution seems to solve the problem, but I feel goes too far.  Why make MA one way?  If NJT can be convinced to reverse the traffic flow in the parking lot, why do we have to make MA one way between Baker and Lenox?  It could remain two way.

The problem will be with NJT.  Why would they possibly want to turn their parking lot into a thoroughfare?  (Also don't forget traffic going south on MA from Cottage Court.)  There will be obvious legal and liability problems.  And also if the traffic reversing the parking lot flow arrives at Baker St. what will be the safe traffic directions to follow?

IMHO this proposal should not/may not fly.

I have lived here for 30 years.  This is a bad idea unless there have been lots of injuries, which we haven't had.   Occasional crack downs by the police would help the situation with less drama.    I get the pros and cons but it just isn't worth the change.   It will not affect my life very much either way.   I am just curious who related to the town thinks this is a good idea.     

At Mayfest on Sunday I spoke with the head of the new traffic division.  I mentioned the cars parking in the crosswalk on Maplewood Avenue near Baker Street and the cars that park in the yellow striped areas immediately adjacent to the crosswalks in the Village, stating that this practice was posing a danger to pedestrians because they could not see on-coming traffic and on-coming traffic could not see them..  He agreed but went on to say that he only had a few officers assigned to the unit and they had to cover the entire town, not just Maplewood Avenue.  From this, I would conclude that while traffic enforcement in the Village might increase going forward, it may not reach the level needed to serve as a major deterrent of the poor behavior so many of us are writing about on this thread.

ml1 said:

ctrzaska said:
On moving violations, they’ll say that if they didn’t see it then they can’t write the ticket, but you could file a complaint.  On parking violations I’m sure it would be similar.  


And there’s no reason I can think of why they can’t enforce far, far more aggressively in town.  Understand it puts PD in a tough spot, and not all like to write up residents for “minor” traffic stuff vs emphatically calling folks out, but it has to happen. 

 How about a stern warning on a first offense?  Then the township keeps a record of the reason for the traffic stop.  A second offense gets a ticket, even if it's for minor offense.  Only completely unreasonable people would resent a ticket if they got off without one the first time.

Assuming there was a way to quickly validate from the car whether a warning has been previously issued (I don’t recall offhand), I think that’s more than fair for both sides.  

mrmaplewood said:

This appears to be an unusual workaround to the problem of relocating the Post Office.  As I use the Post Office, I drive south on Maplewood Ave. and hope for a parking space, do my business in a few minutes, then want to drive north on MA, but there is no easy turnaround.  

As was mentioned earlier, the easy turnaround is to drive several more feet south on Maplewood Ave. and make a left into the NJT lot, then a right onto Maplewood Avenue. Traffic through that lot is one way in both directions. (Sounds impossible but is true.)

mrmaplewood said:

This appears to be an unusual workaround to the problem of relocating the Post Office.  As I use the Post Office, I drive south on Maplewood Ave. and hope for a parking space, do my business in a few minutes, then want to drive north on MA, but there is no easy turnaround.  The solution is to drive up north on Lenox Terr. (over rough pavement), right on Ridgewood, then down Baker to the intersection of MA again and left again at this awkward intersection. This is inconvenient.
My workaround I use is to U-Turn in the intersection of Baker and Lenox, dangerous and illegal, but I'm going north on MA again.  Not recommended.
This proposed solution seems to solve the problem, but I feel goes too far.  Why make MA one way?  If NJT can be convinced to reverse the traffic flow in the parking lot, why do we have to make MA one way between Baker and Lenox?  It could remain two way.
The problem will be with NJT.  Why would they possibly want to turn their parking lot into a thoroughfare?  (Also don't forget traffic going south on MA from Cottage Court.)  There will be obvious legal and liability problems.  And also if the traffic reversing the parking lot flow arrives at Baker St. what will be the safe traffic directions to follow?
IMHO this proposal should not/may not fly.

 Park outside the Post Office. Back out, drive south down MA a few yards, then U-turn through the NJ Transit lot, which puts you facing Lenox. Turn right.

What about this is so difficult to do?

In the mid 1980s, Monderman, then a regional safety inspector, was sent to the small village of Oudehaske to see what could be done about vehicle speeds – weeks earlier a car had fatally struck two children. While conventional options at the time might have included speed bumps or more signage – both known in the industry as “traffic calming” – Monderman ultimately suggested making Oudehaske more “village-like.”

 http://bigthink.com/articles/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs

Offer a couple of cops overtime to walk on Maplewood Avenue a few hours per week. Again, the income from issuance of summons will pay for the salary.

That will not take away from the "few officers assigned to the unit."

A few randomly scheduled hours per month -- word will get around.

dave said:

In the mid 1980s, Monderman, then a regional safety inspector, was sent to the small village of Oudehaske to see what could be done about vehicle speeds – weeks earlier a car had fatally struck two children. While conventional options at the time might have included speed bumps or more signage – both known in the industry as “traffic calming” – Monderman ultimately suggested making Oudehaske more “village-like.”

 http://bigthink.com/articles/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs

 I think you have to have a fairly low percentage of entitled jackasses for that approach to work in a given society.

joan_crystal said:
At Mayfest on Sunday I spoke with the head of the new traffic division.  I mentioned the cars parking in the crosswalk on Maplewood Avenue near Baker Street and the cars that park in the yellow striped areas immediately adjacent to the crosswalks in the Village, stating that this practice was posing a danger to pedestrians because they could not see on-coming traffic and on-coming traffic could not see them..  He agreed but went on to say that he only had a few officers assigned to the unit and they had to cover the entire town, not just Maplewood Avenue.  From this, I would conclude that while traffic enforcement in the Village might increase going forward, it may not reach the level needed to serve as a major deterrent of the poor behavior so many of us are writing about on this thread.

Lame explanation from the PD.  The primary issues right now are in the downtown area, especially on Maplewood Ave.  This area needs to be a priority for the new Traffic Division for the near future.  It sounds like just more excuses..... the more things change the more they stay the same.

yahooyahoo said:

joan_crystal said:
At Mayfest on Sunday I spoke with the head of the new traffic division.  I mentioned the cars parking in the crosswalk on Maplewood Avenue near Baker Street and the cars that park in the yellow striped areas immediately adjacent to the crosswalks in the Village, stating that this practice was posing a danger to pedestrians because they could not see on-coming traffic and on-coming traffic could not see them..  He agreed but went on to say that he only had a few officers assigned to the unit and they had to cover the entire town, not just Maplewood Avenue.  From this, I would conclude that while traffic enforcement in the Village might increase going forward, it may not reach the level needed to serve as a major deterrent of the poor behavior so many of us are writing about on this thread.

Lame explanation from the PD.  The primary issues right now are in the downtown area, especially on Maplewood Ave.  This area needs to be a priority for the new Traffic Division for the near future.  It sounds like just more excuses..... the more things change the more they stay the same.

 Unfortunately, there are traffic issues all over the Township.  For example, I just read about the car that flipped over on Elmwood the other day.

https://villagegreennj.com/police-and-fire/teens-crash-cars-while-speeding-on-elmwood-ave-in-maplewood-sunday-may-20/

Yeah, but do cars flip over on Elmwood every day? Problems on Mpl. Avenue are an hourly occurrence.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:
Yeah, but do cars flip over on Elmwood every day? Problems on Mpl. Avenue are an hourly occurrence.

It was a "for example", responding to a statement that Maplewood Avenue "needs to be a priority for the new Traffic Division".  There is, unfortunately, dangerous driving throughout the Township.

There are traffic and parking issues beyond those in the Village unfortunately.  Delivery trucks frequently park right by the corner of Springfield Avenue and South Pierson, even though the curb is painted yellow and no parking signs are present.  Drop off areas by the elementary schools, especially Clinton and Seth Boyden, are a mess on school days.  Speeding is rampant on quite a few streets in town including Prospect Street and on Burnett Avenue.  Cars frequently run the red light heading north on Valley at Baker.  Cars heading west on Tuscan and turning left onto Valley don't stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk.  These are just the areas I am familiar with.  As noted above, the problem is over much of the town.  The sergeant I spoke with was saying that he doesn't have the staff to pay exclusive attention to the Village.  The Village area is important for a lot of reasons.  So are the areas like the corner of Elmwood and Prospect which are known to be the site of frequent collisions; and the areas adjacent to our schools.  We need to take a town wide approach to pedestrian safety and traffic calming.  The State has already funded one pedestrian safety study, which is nearing completion.  Two organizations I am familiar with in Maplewood are applying for grant money to fund pedestrian safety initiatives.  Our neighbors in SO are sponsoring a program called Beyond Speed Bumps on June 9, 2018 from 12:30 pm to 3:30 pm at Seton Hall University (Register by emailing Tonia Moore at toniamoore9@verizon.net or go on Eventbrite (https://www.eventbrite.com/e/beyond-speed -bumps-alternatives-for-traffic-calming-registration-44960243298).  Add the Maplewood town meeting at the Woodland on 5/31 and there is a lot being discussed on this issue right now and plenty of opportunity for each of us to provide our input where it counts.

So not a PD issue, then, but a TC one.  Fine.  Hire more junior officers and hand them over to Reeves.