West Orange council hears urgent safety concerns as town advances Safe Streets study

West Orange — Dozens of residents on June 9 urged the Township Council to move faster on traffic safety and neighborhood parking after a string of near‑misses and crashes in several neighborhoods.

Kenneth Gibbons, speaking for his Valley section block, told council members the township is committing $562,500 total to a Safe Streets-for-All (SS4A) program — $450,000 federal and $112,500 local — and pressed the administration for clearer criteria, itemized consultant invoices and accessible GIS outputs so neighborhoods can follow how priority corridors were selected. “By 2029, I want a Ward One senior walking safely to the bus stop on Northfield Avenue at night,” Gibbons said.

Why it matters: Residents described daily and repeated dangerous driving around Gregory Avenue and Mount Pleasant, including a string of collisions in one recent month, and they want concrete, near-term measures as well as a plan for longer-term engineering changes. Council members and staff said the SS4A grant funds planning and two studies (a lighting study and a report focused on vulnerable road users) and does not fund full implementation.

What the council and staff said: Director Carbalo said the township issued an RFP and selected Michael Baker International to do the studies after scoring multiple vendors. The awarded study contract is a planning-level package; implementation — traffic signals, curb changes, full corridor rebuilds or other capital work — will require separate funding. “You cannot have an implementation plan unless you have something to guide you,” she said, describing the $450,000 as study funds that should position the township to apply for implementation grants later.

Residents asked for specifics. Gibbons and other residents said they want to know exactly why Gregory Avenue was not singled out as a priority corridor, whether the town’s $112,500 match is already budgeted, and a realistic estimate of full implementation costs. “Tonight’s $562,500 is five to 15 cents on the dollar,” he told the council, warning that study approval will trigger larger taxpayer commitments when projects advance.

Enforcement, education and engineering: Police and town staff described a mix of short- and longer-term responses: a speed-feedback trailer has been used, targeted enforcement by radar and officers has produced tickets when resources permit, and parking enforcement continues in problem blocks. The police chief reminded residents that engineering, education and enforcement must work together and said staffing limits constrain a permanent presence at every hot spot.

Next steps: Staff said the consultants will produce two reports that should identify specific countermeasures; the township would then seek implementation grants (including additional federal FHWA or state funds) or allocate municipal capital to carry out high‑priority fixes. Council members pressed for more timely outreach to affected wards, a public display of data, and at least one pop‑up engagement event in the Valley to gather local input before votes.

What remains unresolved: The town has not yet presented a single, consolidated cost estimate for full implementation at the corridor level, nor has it publicly committed the local match dollars beyond the study phase. Residents asked the council to require transparent invoicing and to make consultant outputs (GIS files, data) available in machine-readable form so neighborhoods can verify priorities.

The council did not vote on implementation at the June 9 meeting; the SS4A study award and match remain the immediate action, with next steps hinging on the consultants’ findings and the town’s ability to secure future construction funding.