Steve Fulop may very well tell us that it's a done deal because the city council approved the project a long time ago. But it was a poor decision then, and proceeding with it is a poor decision now.

This is an opportunity to make Columbus Drive more of a boulevard -- like Montgomery between Marin and the river -- and less like Grand. There should be parking, two lanes of traffic in each direction, and a median with trees.

Columbus Drive suffers because it used to be Railroad Avenue, with elevated trains. That's why there are few nice buildings facing Columbus west of Grove. We shouldn't accentuate that historical fact by making Columbus more of a highway. We should seek to transform Columbus by making it a pleasant place for pedestrians and bikes.

Ian is right -- there is no traffic flow data available because no traffic studies were done. There is no demonstrated need for this project. There never has been. All you have to do is sit for an hour at Wonder Bagel and watch the traffic on a weekday morning. Columbus doesn't need widening. Columbus needs to be a more pleasant street.

One more thing: Moving the taxi stand from Columbus to Grove will require taking away the short-term parking meters on Grove. That won't be good for the businesses there. And we can't help this city thrive if we do that.

True leadership includes the willingness to take a fresh look at old decisions. Steve, be brave.

who says that Goldman is leaving town?

the 'goal' is improve traffic flow and reduce commuting time- no benefits to the residents.

i can only see this causing more people to cut through the downtown streets to get to the holland tunnel. at the expense of pedestrian safety and loss of parking spots on columbus from brunswick all the way to warren.

this really makes no sense at all. all they had to do was repave the street.

Are there any residents who are actually happy about this expansion? There seems to be zero benefits for the residents of JC; just benefits for the suburban commuters.

Furthermore, is there even a NEED for widening Columbus Drive? Call me crazy, but I have NEVER noticed significant traffic and congestion on Columbus Drive. Why are we pouring $ into widening this road?

Really confusing. Steve Fulop, can you shed some more light on it?

This is what happens when you let drunks run the city.

Here are some photos with illustrated expressions of the "improvements":

Illustrated photos

And some more details from the seemingly incompetent city planning office: Project Details

No one at the city can produce information on traffic flow. I suspect the city took it upon themselves to widen the road without the state required studies and planning, which is also I suspect why the city insists its a streetscape improvement and not a roadway expansion.

But hey, why would anyone in city government bother to understand basic planning principles.

Really? So we'll be losing valuable parking for residents to make a better (ie. faster) commuter roadway?

Pedestrians and cyclists can barely get around the city as it is without getting run down, I can't even imagine what a nightmare Christopher Columbus would become!

Does anyone have a link to city information regarding this project?

Does this have something to do with the fence they had up between Marin and Warren?

This whole project makes me furious. The last thing JC needs is another expressway into downtown. Look at what happened to Grand Street when the on-street parking was removed to add lanes. It's a speedway. And when Columbus becomes 5-lanes, smooth, and pot-hole-free it will just function as an extended off-ramp from the Turnpike.

And btw, the folks at Goldman who demanded this set-up years ago are LEAVING TOWN! So forgetaboutit.

On-street resident parking is a community asset. Don't get rid of it! Safety and slow speeds in a downtown residential area are important. Don't build a highway through it! This project is not good for the folks who live on or near Columbus Dr.

Sorry for the rant, but nobody at city planning wanted to hear it.

according to some discussion on this a couple months ago, they need to take the trees out because they are tearing up the sidewalks & curb extensions to turn christopher columbus into a 5-lane 'highway': 3 lanes going into downtown in the AM rush hour, and 3 lanes going towards the turnpike in the PM rush hour

Leave the trees and stop the PROJECT!

Quote:
MLK Drive looks better, and they actually have a few decent businesses on it. Newark Ave. in Downtown J.C. always seemed run down and weathered.

Why can't they just leave the vaults and trees "as is" and work around them. It seems the answer to all of today's problems is tear it up and start new.

I think simply repaving the road would suffice as that is the main complaint I read over and over again. Why does there need to be a "street-scape" nothing on CC to benefit that much anyway.

I think the "street-scaping" of Newark was a bit over-hyped and miss the big trees that were taken down and replaced with "bushes" like another commenter mentioned.

FG

Do you think Al Capone's treasure is in one of the vaults?

Better call Geraldo.

i'm surprised they couldn't foresee this, knowing that they were going to tear the sidewalks apart.

I don't notice any trees on Columbus Drive.

The whole road is an embarassment, and a terrible first impression of Jersey City when coming off the Turnpike.

nice that they wait to do this until the peak of baby bird season.

oh no!... not another streetscape project. They say they will replace the trees and then plant 3 little bushes in some planters and call it a day.

I doubt Columbus between Grove and Monmouth could look any worse anyways.

Will the trees be eventually replaced?

Vaults?

It has come to my attention that all of the trees along Christopher Columbus drive will need to be removed for the CC Drive streetscape project. This is approxiamtely from Monmouth to Warren.

The reason for removing these trees is that there are many vaults underneath the tree that will need to be removed. Currently the roots are growing around them and during the removal of the vaults the trees will be injured, thus they must be removed if this is the case.

While this is a long awaited project, by law the removal of three or more trees must be preceeded by a public meeting pursuant the Open Public Meetings Act. This will require 2 weeks public notice of the meeting.

While the delay of 2-3 weeks is regrettable, so is the loss of these trees. I believe that this law exists as it is only right the community is involved and aware of the actions of its government and provided with the full reason behind the removal of our trees.

Our office will be pushing for this public meeting as is our duty to protect the rights of my constituents and this is the law.

Steve

? 321-3.1. - Removal of trees due to public improvements. [Added 6-27-01 by Ord. No. 01-082]

A. Prior to the removal of three (3) or more trees in the public right-of-way by the City or its agent in order to facilitate the repair or installation of any public improvements, including but not limited to sewers, water mains, roads or sidewalks, the Director of the Department of Public Works shall convene a hearing to determine whether or not the City is in compliance with ? 321-3(A&F).

B. The hearing shall be held by a committee comprised of three members, the Mayor or his designee, who shall serve as chairperson, the council member representing the ward in which the projected is located and a City resident, who shall be selected by the Director. The committee shall solicit information from the Director of the Division of Parks Maintenance or other landscaping professional.

C. The Director shall provide notice of the time and place of the committee meeting to the public pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act. Within ten (10) days of holding its hearing, the committee shall provide a written decision to the Director of Public Works.