Am very pleased to see Peter Humphreys speaking about the permit overhaul and enforcement issues. There are too many business permit holders parking in the commuter lots, and there are too many cars parked there without any permits at all. I suspect he's also right about people getting resident permits for friends and relatives, though that seems a little harder to do. For a long time I thought we needed a deck, but now I'm convinced otherwise.

Although not mentioned in this article, as demonstrated by the subcommittee's presentation last night, the Chatham Road tree removal proposal remains under serious consideration. Robert Tillotson estimates that 165 trees could be removed to provide parking. Many residents raised related safety and aesthetic concerns, and Mayor Haimoff agreed that such a plan does not jibe with the Township's recent green certification.

I still think the permit abuse issue is a red herring. When all is said and done, I am sure some people abuse the system but not at a level that really makes much difference in the overall number of commuters parking.

Really the issue is simple - increase the number of parking places or decide that valet is your permanent solution. I still think a garage on lot 2 is the best option, with some more minor tweaking of parking in Short Hills that does not include a full extension of the coal shoot, is the way to go. But I am satisfied with the status quo. I think the valet works well, means that I will always be able to get a parking spot (so long as overflow to lot 2 is allowed) and the cost of the permit, which includes covering the valet cost, is not unreasonable. So if the decision is to just keep things as they are I will not be upset.

Why no mention of the proposals the Committee is considering for parking at the Short Hills Train Station? This is still very much alive, with 5 or 6 proposals still on the table, some of which were introduced for the first time at Tuesday's meeting. Among those are: perpendicular (head - in) parking down Chatham Road, from a) Baltusrol to Woodland (replacing curbside); Woodland to Forest; Forest to Taylor. The tree cutting on the North Side of Chatham Road, from Woodland intersection to train station building is still being considered. At one point, the Committee proposed clearing the green space south of the Summit Medical Group Building (on Woodland) and turning that area, which abuts the Arboretum, into a parking lot. The Committee is still spending money on engineers and such to determine whether these actions are feasible. They are very much still on the table. The Committee will determine on Feb. 15th which of these proposals will go forward.
People residing in the area around the SH train station would be well advised to start attending township committee meetings.
By the way, discussion of SH train parking was done in a vacuum. No consideration was given to the impact of the Summit Medical Group expansion and the train parking modifications on the surrounding residents. Construction on parking lots might be done in 2012 and who knows if SMG construction will overlap.
The hodgepodge of proposals makes me wonder if Committee can see the Bigger Picture.

I think a balanced approach should be taken-tighten up on permit abuse, reconfigure both the Millburn and Short Hills parking lots, and then take into account the fact that more and more people telecommute. Ride this for a few years, then see if the demand still exists. Do we really want our downtown defined by a big concrete box? How green is replacing a blacktop parking lot with a giant box with two or three times the vehicles inside?

I agree with Yenta. A number of persons spoke out against the Short Hills proposals, yet not a single mention of it in the Patch. The only concept that made any sense would be to do some reconfiguration of Parking Lot 3. Otherwise, the ideas put forth are just intended to eliminate the green in our environmentally sensitive municipality and there is no consideration for the traffic problems that would be created and the fact that the township would be adding impervious area without doing anything about the additional runoff. It seem very clear that the Committee should be focusing on two things: first, placing the garage in the downtown on Lot 2 and reconfiguration of Lot 3 at Short Hills.

Against More Traffic and in Favor of Keeping Millburn-Short Hills Green

Dennis, our 'enviromentally sensitive' municipality hasn't seen a groundswell of opposition here on Patch against the zoning variance application for the Old Short Hills Road residence/Temple conversion-because it's not in many peoples backyard. Same thing with the COAH Livingston construction-very quiet here on Patch. You would think everyone crying 'Green!' would've been equally vocal against those two proposals, but there has been silence for the most part. Short Hills support for a parking garage in Millburn has a very large NIMBY quotient to it. Certainly, a big concrete box alongside the branch of the Rahway River can't be a good thing, can it?

So you're ok for more traffic in Millburn (a lot more children would walk by a parking garage near the library and Middle School than walking to Glenwood-do any kids walk to Glenwood by the way?), but not by where you live?

The best solution may be just what I suggested-do a little restriping, keep the valet, track ridership to see if it's decreasing, not take on another bond proposal, and keep downtown just as green as it is now, not add to traffic and pollution in town center.

I agree with Yenta, as well. Does the Township Committee have such a short memory that they don't recall just six months ago, when SMG presented a huge proposed building, with a parking deck, on the corner of Woodland Road? And yet last night a number of parking proposals are put forth that require more trees removed, and more black-top added, to a location where flooding of residential properties is the result of any heavy rain. In fact, just two weeks ago the Patch had a small story that SMG was not going away with their proposal, and was going to resubmit it.

I am curious whether this sudden hunger to build parking spaces around the train station, for the as-of-yet undemonstrated commuter need, is somehow intended to satisfy the questions that were raised relating to SMG's parking should they build. Even if it is not, the residents of Short Hills are entitled to have all building projects on the table, before the Township Committee makes piecemeal decisions.

Sandy, I've seen the SUV's lined up dropping and picking kids up, so the percentage of kids walking to Glenwood has changed over the years. And I would imagine many of the Glenwood kids short cut through the Arboretum, leaving them a block walk along Chatham Road-I know I did that walking from Canterbury Lane to Glenwood School as a child. I do agree, though-we don't need any drastic measures like widening the coal chute OR building a concrete box downtown.

I agree with what Damian proposes. Try to eek out more spaces in Short Hills without cutting down ANY trees and the same for lot 7 and the lot by the library. Then try a shuttle again. Then try buying surface parking areas at the gas station on Chatham or in Millburn for overflow parking. Then try anything else. But DON'T try a parking garage. Let's just get this off the table. If necessary, do it in Lot 2 so that it helps businsses. But I think reconfiguring the downtown would help businesses more: make Millburn two-way, add slanted spaces like in Maplewood, buy that lot next to the post office. Presto! More parking and a much more ped-friendly and less race-track downtown!

Damian, it sounds like you're opposed to a Millburn parking deck. Can you walk around at some point on the commuter lots there and record from a sample how many cars with the circular business permits are parked there (in the commuter spaces, apart from the reserved spaces) on a given day? From even a short distance they look exactly like the commuter permits, but if you look closely the colored part is a circle. When I went around the Short Hills lots I noted about 10% business permits and another 20% did not display any permit at all. As I confirmed (and posted earlier), the town as a rule allows cars with business parking permits to park at any lot in Millburn and Short Hills.

Even if we all know socially only a few people who are getting regular business, transferable or not, and/or commuter permits for their friends and relatives from out-of-town, and/or registering the friends and relatives' vehicles as "replacement" vehicles, overall I suspect the number can really add up. I suspect the valet parking company has no incentive to enforce, either, so perhaps these outsiders are benefiting directly from the valet parking as well.

I certainly don't want the town to be spending $8 million on a deck it doesn't need to spend.

Damian - also as to your comment about Glenwood School, we live roughly around there. Ironically, the high number of cars being used instills some fright. Some parents are afraid to let their kids walk to school because there are so many cars. The streets are puzzlingly still two-way, and cars come from every direction. So the fright factor adds to the number of cars because parents drive the kids for safety.

Is there really a shortage of commuter parking in SH? There are always many open spots on M-F along Chatham Road between Forest and Woodland. I haven't counted but I'd guess 15 - 20 unused spots daily.

Charles, I'm opposed to both the Millburn deck and Coal Chute expansion. The attitude towards spending should operate with a scalpel, rather than a sledgehammer. As far as business/resident permits, I'm sure there is abuse because of lack of enforcement. There is a snowbound car parked for a week in the business permit lot behind Schoolhouse Plaza (no overnight parking too). While I have seen the meter enforcement staff writing tickets at metered spots I can't ever recall seeing one patrolling a commuter lot.

As far as Glenwood, the crossing guards do a great job, as they do throughout town. The issue is too many giant SUV's being driven with one hand, the other working the Crackberry/phone-sadly, this describes many of our own town residents. Imagine the revenue if the MPD could deputize a few people who could issue tickets for cellphone talking and poor parking. Every time I walk downtown the number of SUV's parked with wheels outside the parallel parking box is astounding!

M Okeef - Later in each day, say 11 a.m., on Chatham basically all of the business permit reserved parking spots and some of the commuter metered parking spots are open. These are a couple of facts that caused me to look into exactly where business permitted cars can park -- the answer, both documented and oral from the meter maid person, is "any lot in Millburn and Short Hills."

Damian - one of the interesting things I saw a few weeks back in a SH commuter lot is that on one car, rather than having any permit displayed, there was a police cap displayed on the back shelf. So the meter maid would see the police cap and need to calculate whether she would be ticketing a fellow police officer. (It hadn't been ticketed; no cars I saw were ticketed.)

Also several of the cars displaying business permits parked in choice commuter spots near the SH station appeared to be modest student cars (you know -- the paraphernalia, stickers, stuff on the seats, etc.) . I don't have anything against students from other towns commuting to New York, but why should they do so with "business" parking privileges on our lots?