Residents push back on Safe Routes sidewalk plan for Brookside and Laurel drives; council to reconvene with engineers

Residents at a New Providence Borough Council meeting told elected officials the borough’s proposed Safe Routes‑to‑School sidewalk plan for Brookside and Laurel drives needs more study and local input.

At the start of the public‑comment period, longtime resident Donna Zane read correspondence and disputed a narrative that an earlier petition from 2004 or 2005 is solely responsible for placing Brookside on the 2018 sidewalk grant list; she said the petition had been followed by multiple engineering and walkability studies and police surveys. ‘‘I challenge its validity,’’ Zane said, reading letters submitted to the council and asserting community members have been mischaracterized in recent messages to neighbors.

Martin Wilson of 45 Laurel Drive and other speakers said the engineer’s proposed alignment would send children to cross at busier intersections rather than provide a safer route. Wilson said the plan ‘‘funnels children to the wrong side of the street’’ and warned that a narrowed roadway and new crossing movements could increase risk near Springfield Avenue. Several speakers asked the borough to consider alternatives including targeted traffic‑calming measures and improved signage instead of continuous sidewalks along the full stretch.

Multiple residents, including Kathy Maloney, quoted the borough’s retained engineer — Don Hartman of Aurora & Associates — as saying, ‘‘this makes no sense,’’ when shown the current plan; Maloney said Hartman told her the sidewalk was proposed on the wrong side of Laurel Drive relative to the school. Residents cited roughly 8–10 mature trees that would need removal on some blocks and raised repeated concerns that removing deep‑rooted trees could worsen the borough’s high water table and damage basements. ‘‘Where is the water going to go?’’ Maloney asked, noting potential costs to homeowners for sump‑pump and drainage remediation.

Newer residents voiced similar objections: Tarun (19 Brookside Drive) and Ashwini (95 Brookside Drive) said they were surprised by the plan and its lack of neighborhood outreach, and Sudir (95 Brookside Drive) said they prefer alternatives that preserve the tree canopy while improving safety.

Council members acknowledged the volume and specificity of concerns. Mayor (speaker 1) and councilmembers said the Safe Routes program was driven by volunteer grant work and years of professional studies, but that the design phase must account for on‑the‑ground conditions. Council committed to meet with police, engineering staff and impacted residents to review options — including different sidewalk alignments, drainage mitigation, and traffic calming — before any final decision. The mayor said comments are on the record and that the borough will hold a follow‑up session once engineers and public‑safety staff complete their review.

The public hearing closed after participants urged the borough to convene a dedicated session with residents and engineers and to present alternatives and data before proceeding. The council said it would return to the community with additional information and next steps.

The hearing began at the council’s public‑comment period and concluded with council assurances of further analysis; no final construction decision was made at the meeting.