Meeting Background - October,6 2009

As most residents of South Franklin Street are aware from correspondence dated September 23, 2009, sent by Mayor DelVecchio, yet another meeting on "traffic calming" with residents has been scheduled for tomorrow evening, Tuesday, October 6, 2009.

The Mayor's letter further states that the 6 pm meeting at the Justice Center at 25 South Union Street, has been scheduled "to further discuss the preliminary plan" for traffic calming on our hill.

What preliminary plan?

From the start of this project, Paul, Eleanor and I have tried to make it clear to the Mayor and to the Engineer, that we were volunteering to be involved as stakeholders in the process of developing that plan. Unfortunately, the silence has been consistent, and the requested communication has been virtually non-existent. Meetings, such as tomorrow evening's, are now even being scheduled without any consultation regarding schedules, which we would have been more than happy to help coordinate, if asked. Paul Gorecki's Open Letter to the Mayor dated September 12, 2009, and posted below, makes it very clear, citing specifics, that there has been little or no effective communication throughout this process.

But we took the lead in carefully analyzing the various safety factors involved, we prepared and presented a detailed photographic presentation highlighting those specific problems, and made some basic suggestions for consideration by all. And, most importantly, all of that information was posted on this website for anyone to consult, review or comment on.

The last meeting, the one held on September 10th, was billed as for the planned unveiling of a preliminary plan. No such plan was offered, and much of the time was instead spent rehashing information, some of which had seemed settled as of last summer.

At the beginning of the meeting, during an introductory attempt to "set the stage" for where we currently stood, imprecise information regarding signage was supplied by both the Public Works Director (re: the Woodcrest emergency access roadway), and as well by the Engineer (re; the posted speed signage on the roadway). Even a cursory review of the photographic evidence herein would have obviated such errors. And the erroneous belief by the engineer that speed limits were not posted could have easily contributed to wasted time and effort in analyzing the scope of the problem.

All anyone had to do was to review the basic posts here.

We were treated to an informative slide show, and a general discussion of potential traffic calming measures and steps ensued. During the course of the meeting, a factional notion was offered, suggesting that "all we need to do is lower the speed limit to 15 mph" and the problem will somehow all be solved.

Two of the strongest proponents of that notion reside on the upper dirt road portion of the street, where speeding is really not a pervasive issue. But speaking anecdotally, speeding apparently IS a "micro-issue" up there, and certainly deserves to be addressed. So, perhaps that would be a good solution for that portion of the roadway. If that is what they want, I'm sure all of us would be supportive of such a request.

However, the inherent difficulties involved in posting a 15 mph speed limit on the macadam portions of the roadway become apparent, if given even a little thought.

First, the speed limit of 25 mph on South Franklin Street is clearly posted, and in both directions. Yet, we currently have a speeding problem with some vehicles. Many of us have observed the patterns, and have no doubt that a number of speeders drive up and down the hill, sometimes at more than double the posted speed.

If some speeders are willing to drive at speeds of 50, or even occasionally at 60 mph, when the speed limit is posted at 25 mph, what possible effect would lowering the speed limit to 15 mph have on them?

I would suggest "none" when it comes to the problem speeders.

One portion of the meeting that was very beneficial was when Sgt. Brown of the Lambertville Police Department showed up and described some of the difficulties of actual enforcement, including the specific requirements involved in setting up a radar unit on the roadway. He also addressed the fact that there was an attempt to enforce at one point several months back, which required their black and white vehicle to be wet up at a point where it was easily visible.

Secondly, the City cannot be expected to supply enforcement resources in locations where traffic is not comparatively heavy, such as up here on South Franklin Street. That is why we have instead urged the implementation of certain in-place traffic calming measures to slow the dangerous speeder traffic on the hill.

So, without the possibility for any concentrated or even meaningful enforcement, coupled with a lowering of the speed limit to 15, what would the effect likely be, in the absence of installing traffic calming measures?

A small percentage of people who strictly obey speed limits would lower their speed from 25 down to 15, the bulk of the drivers would continue to drive at what speed they consider "reasonable" for the conditions, and the speeders would continue along their merry way, continuing to endanger the small children on the upper portion of the road, as well as the numerous pedestrians, as well as pet owners throughout.

What do I base this on? A considerable number of traffic speed studies, conducted by and for the United States Department of Transportation over the years bear out that pattern.

For example, many years ago a study was prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entitled, "Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits" which noted in the summary that:

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered.

In other words, posting lower speed limits by itself does not decrease motorists' speeds. But what will lower or moderate speeds are traffic calming measures, including speed humps or tables, and many of the other measures the engineers showed us pictures of at the last meeting.

Residents will recall that the Mayor himself told us at one of our earlier meetings that the effect of placing speed humps on South Union Street, which he supported as a resident of that neighborhood at the time, was very positive. And he further said that it was the one area in the City where he had stopped receiving complaints about speeding. We have reported on this site the statements of residents on Ferry Street about the benefits of the "speed cushions" that have been employed there.

Another significant factor to consider is that it should be the goal of whatever measures are implemented to moderate traffic flow so that there will be a rational speed limit, one that most people will see as appropriate, and one that is safe.

Reducing the speed limit down to 15 mph could actually have a net negative effect.

A 2006 study sponsored by ASHTO* and others, entitled "EXPERT SYSTEM FOR RECOMMENDING SPEED LIMITS IN SPEED ZONES: FINAL REPORT" made the point very precisely.

Artificially low speed limits can lead to poor compliance as well as large variations in speed within the traffic stream. Increased speed variance can also create more conflicts and passing maneuvers that can lead to more crashes.

And as also noted in the earlier study:

Arbitrary, unrealistic and nonuniform speed limits have created a socially acceptable disregard for speed limits. Unrealistic limits increase accident risks for persons who attempt to comply with limit by driving slower or faster than the majority of road users. Unreasonably low limits significantly decrease driver compliance and give road users such as person not familiar with the road and pedestrians, a false indication of actual traffic speeds.

But implementation of traffic calming measures will tend to control the speeders on the roadway, making it more safe for everyone.

Finally, at the last meeting we were given information regarding roadway grades that, seemed clearly at variance with reality, at least with regards the upper part of the roadway. We have asked for specific data from the engineer, and none has been forthcoming. South Franklin Street above the entrance to the St. Johns Cemetery roadway, running up to where it intersects with Highland Avenue, is part of what we have asked about. But why this persistent lack of communication has occurred is simply beyond us. All we want is to be sure the grant is put to the most efficient and beneficial use for the residents, in implementing a project that will impact our quality of life and safety.


* The work states that it was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies.

Letter to the Mayor - Traffic Claming Measures

September 12, 2009


City of Lambertville
c/o Dave DelVecchio
18 York St.
Lambertville, NJ 08530


RE: S. Franklin St. - Traffic Calming Measures
Meeting September 10, 2009


Dave:


The purpose of this correspondence is to express my dismay regarding the content provided by the City Engineer at the referenced meeting. Your August 24, 2009 letter stated that the City Engineer was completing preliminary plans for traffic calming measures on our street. To the contrary, the City Engineer proposed no such plans at the meeting. Instead, she and her colleague presented slides demonstrating various traffic calming measures. I appreciated the open forum and exchange of ideas, but for many of us residents present at the meeting this was quite trivial.


Please remember, the residents of S. Franklin St are the catalyst behind the current traffic calming efforts. We were successful in addressing our objectives related to the St. John cemetery pass through and concurrently focused our efforts toward traffic calming measures on our street. In March and April of this year we already brought DOT Regulations and the corresponding ITE Guidance to your attention. Shortly thereafter we worked with the City to obtain a funding source in the form of the DRJTBC in preparation for the assessment/implementation of traffic calming measures on our street.


Two days after your July 8, 2009 correspondence, we called to request "early buy-in" in the development of preliminary plans alongside the City Engineer for traffic calming measures on our street. At that point, it was clearly conveyed that we wanted preliminary plans for traffic calming measures in succession to address concerns at the top, middle and bottom of our street.
Since no plans were unveiled at the meeting, contrary to our wishes, please take note of the following:

• the consensus amongst the residents is that a speed table is the most appropriate measure at the top of the hill, north of Highland Ave. There appears to be a 450 foot run, from 93 S. Franklin St. to 115 S. Franklin St in which the grade is less than 8 percent, the recommended ceiling for speed humps in the ITE Guidance, not speed tables . The speed table is longer and lower in height than a speed hump and in most instances runs the entire width of the street. It will serve as an excellent means to calm traffic in that portion of our street. That portion is of particular concern because it is the area which houses the majority of the children living on the street.
  

• concerning the middle portion of our street, particularly between 69 S. Franklin St and 85 S. Franklin St, one bump-out on the either side, preferably the east side, of the street with appropriate signs and markings should suffice. Even though the grade is at a greater percent than at the top of the street, the bump-out will certainly serve as an adequate calming device for drivers to reduce their speed in that portion of the street.
  

The area in which we are asking for the City Engineer’s expertise is at the bottom of our street, south of the intersection at S. Franklin St and Swan St. Given that the driving area of the road narrows due to parking on the west side of the street and the grade in that area of the street is the steepest, we are anticipating the City Engineer’s plans for our concerns in that location.


Therefore, I would personally appreciate if you could please stop speed and traffic source surveys and ensure that the allotted grant money is spent on preparing the bid and, in turn, implementing the traffic calming measures at the top and middle of the street. Furthermore, can you also convey to the City Engineer that she should include what we, the residents, want in the recommendation. Our recommendations are not without reason and purpose. Finally, are you able to ensure that the City Engineer brings substance to the October 6, 2009 meeting, by proposing traffic calming measures at the bottom of our street?


There is no reason why the allotted grant money should be consumed on additional surveys and/or presentations conveying what we as residents already know about traffic concerns on our street.


In addition, please provide the following information, addressed to Steve Robbins at 65-D, S. Franklin St., on or prior to Friday, October 2, 2009:

• total engineering costs charged to our project as of the September 10th meeting
  
• results from the engineering survey depicting the elevations every 100 feet along S. Franklin St (i.e., Swan St to Highland Ave.)
  

Finally, kindly provide Steve or myself two days advance notice of the next time the City Engineer and her surveying crew plans to be present to evaluate traffic calming measures at the bottom of our street.


Paul Gorecki
87 S. Franklin St.


PS: Your August 24, 2009 correspondence directed resident concerns via telephone and/or email through the City Clerk to Paul Cronce, Public Works Director. There does not appear to be a direct way to reach Paul via email. Is it possible to get Paul his own email address?

Reminder . . . tonight's meeting

Per a letter from Mayor DelVecchio which you should have received, dated August 24, 2009, a meeting will be held this evening in the Justice Complex at 25 South Union Street, at 6:00 pm, "to further discuss the preliminary plan" for the South Franklin Street traffic calming project.

We had asked that the City engineer include us in during the development of the plan as primary stakeholders in the project, but unfortunately, this will be the first contact we have had, other than the letter announcing the meeting.

Council Approves Resolution to Enforce One-Way

On Monday evening, April 20, 2009, the Lambertville City Council unanimously approved a resolution providing for police enforcement of the "One-Way" designation of the private roadway running between the two cemeteries -- St. John's and Mt. Hope -- between South Franklin Street and Boozer Street. The roadway is a private drive owned by St. John's. The police will now be able to enforce for the Title 39 violation. The Church had requested the City enforce the One-Way designation, per a letter sent to the City back in early April.

Under New Jersey law, provided for at N.J.S.A. 39:4–85.1, operation of a vehicle the wrong way on a one-way street, according to the Judiciary's schedule -- the Statewide Violations Bureau Schedules Traffic Ticket Payment Amounts, the recommended payable amount is $85.00, and is a 2 point offense.

In addition, a few more signs were posted as reminders for drivers at key locations along the roadway.


(You can click on any photo to enlarge it.)

Good Friday, Good News

Our neighbors from Woodcrest at Lambertville have received the following notice from their Homeowner's Association. Please click on each of the images of the pages for ease of reading.

The notice certainly speaks for itself, and we should all certainly extend our sincere appreciation for the thoughtful manner in which the Association approached the problem we have had with speeding and other unsafe driving on our roadway, and we thank them for their prompt and thorough attention to this matter.

In addition, Mayor David DelVecchio took the time to update me on the funding issues related to the traffic calming measures being planned for South Franklin Street. He briefly pulled me aside last evening at the hearing that he had called for to address public concerns regarding the Lambertville Sewerage Authority (which has now become the Lambertville Utilities Authority).

We had been previously notified in an informal way that the funding request previously filed with the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission would likely be approved, but that the City would need to file their requests individually, not jointly as had been previously done. According to the Mayor, that new individual request has now been submitted. That too is good news and we certainly appreciate the prompt attention the Mayor has paid to the matter.

Following our meeting* with the Mayor on the 19th of March, several matters still remained up in the air, including the final status of the one-way designation for the roadway through St. John's cemetery. After finding out that the Public Works Director had not spoken to St. Johns Church officials about granting the City permission to enforce the appropriate provisions of Title 39 on the Church-owned roadway, and requesting the enforcement of the One-Way designation for the roadway at the south end of the cemetery, Paul Gorecki and I stopped by to speak with them.

Tracy Muscatell graciously offered to speak to Father Kolakowski about forwarding a letter to that effect to the City. As a consequence, we have since been been informed by her that Father Kolakowski sent the following letter to the City of Lambertville.

April 7, 2009



City of Lambertville
18 York
Street
Lambertville, NJ 08530

Dear Mayor DelVecchio and
Committee Members:

This letter is to ask permission and to request that the City of Lambertville enforce and patrol the private road that connects South Franklin Street with Boozer Street through our cemetery.

We have put up the necessary signs letting people know that the road is now one way. We hope that with the City of Lambertville’s help this continued problem will now be solved.

We appreciate your help with this matter. We hope to continue to work with the community to help others in anyway we can.

Sincerely yours in Christ,



Rev.
Robert Kolakowski
Administrator

It now appears that all aspects of our agenda are now moving successfully forward.

Happy Holidays everyone!


* At that meeting on March 19th, we supplied the City with copies of the pertinent portions of the official "Final Subdivision Plat of Section I Woodcrest At Lambertville," certified by the Lambertville City Clerk on December 19, 1988, and filed with the Hunterdon County Clerk on 12/20/1988, as Map No. 984, as well as a copies of the pertinent portions of the official "Final Subdivision Plat of Section II Woodcrest At Lambertville," certified by the Lambertville City Clerk on 5/30/90, and filed with the Hunterdon County Clerk on 6/18/1990, as Map No. 1048. Each one clearly memorializes the precise location of the centerline of the 12 foot wide arc that is specifically designated as an emergency access easement. The latter (6/18/90) map specifies both the square footage and acreage. The emergency access easement clearly overlays the narrow roadway at Woodcrest running onto Highland Avenue at the head of Boozer Street, emerging from Liberty View Court. That roadway is currently marked with the road sign, "Emergency Vehicle Access Only."

NOTICE: Change of Meeting Location

The Lambertville City Clerk, Lori Buckelew, has informed us that the meeting of South Franklin Street residents with the Mayor this evening, March 19, 2009, at 7:00 pm will be held at City Hall, at 18 York Street, Lambertville, instead of at the Justice Center as originally planned.

The Lambertville Municipal Court will be in session at the Justice Center this afternoon and this evening, thus creating a space conflict. At the time that our meeting was scheduled back on February 25th, the Lambertville Municipal Court was still operating out at the West Amwell facility, so the conflict could not have been readily anticipated. I believe this is their first session back in town.

A notice of the change of location will be posted at the Justice Center alerting anyone who did not receive my e-mail, or see this notice.

Thanks. See you at City Hall at 7:00 pm.

One-Way Sign and An Invitation

It's been up for a few days, and is a little tough to read, but it says "One Way Do Not Enter."

One funny quip heard through the grapevine was that if someone goes out to water it every day it will eventually grow up to be a full sign.

Police Director, Bruce Cocuzza, was out our way yesterday afternoon -- apparently to inspect the "new" sign -- and he pulled over on Boozer Street for a minute or two to chat, as I was on my way to take this photo. Among other things, he volunteered that there are apparently some who are now objecting to the designation of the roadway as "One-Way." He did not say who they were, or how many, or exactly what their objections were. But his tone seemed to me to contrast with his positive expressions about the topic during our meeting with the Mayor back on the 25th of February.

In advocating for the designation of the roadway as "One-Way" we have described, as well as illustrated through photographs, what we believe are the inherent dangers involved on the South Franklin Street side, including the steepness of the down ramp, and the blind spot arising out of the adjacent landscaping.

In spite of initial misgivings expressed at the Council meeting in January, the Mayor enthusiastically supported the idea of the One-Way designation at his meeting with the South Franklin Street residents on February 25th. As everyone present at that meeting will recall, he brought it up! And he volunteered to have City officials go and ask St. Johns Church to permit it to be made "One-Way." We confirmed their support for the idea in a subsequent conversation I had with Rev. Kolakowski of St. Johns.

We certainly hope the Mayor's views have not changed.

In making the case for that designation as a portion of traffic calming measures to help rectify a speeding and unsafe driving problem over here on South Franklin Street, we have pointed to the recent crash that occurred there as a result of a car being driven by a Cottage Hill resident losing control while driving down that ramp. That crash resulted in the totaling a vehicle parked in the owner's driveway over here on the South Franklin Street side. Had the totaled vehicle not been parked in that driveway, by the way, it is very likely that the driver would have crashed his car right into a home. There have been a few other incidents of vehicles spinning out while coming down that ramp.

We therefore think the obvious risks involved outweigh the apparent convenience of a few being free to cut through on their way down to the highway, or to town.

We also believe we made the case for the One-Way designation in a frank, open and responsible manner. The idea of closing off one end was impractical, and finally yielded to common sense. To date, no one has expressed or argued a contrary view here, with the sole exception of a brief note, without further explanation, from the City's engineer about the posting of "No Outlet" signs.

So we are openly extending an invitation to anyone, including the Police Director, or the Mayor, or anyone else, to post their comments and views here.

In fact, anyone should also feel free to attend our scheduled update discuss with the Mayor tonight, March 19th, at the Justice Center, which will start at 7:00 pm.

A Good Start . . . thank you

Well, it is a good start . . . thank you.




But . . . only a good start.



The key location, of course, will be on the Boozer Street side, where the notice would be to the traffic not to enter. . .




And here is one key link to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) on location guidance.

A Backgrounder . . .

Speed Humps for Traffic Calming in NJ
A basis for their use on South Franklin Street, Lambertville, NJ.

We have come across a copy of a lengthy, and somewhat dusty Report entitled:

Concept Report
December 2003

Development of a traffic calming plan for the City of Lambertville

The Report contains a series of recommendations for the employment of traffic calming measures, including "neck downs" and "speed humps" in a variety of locations within the City. It did not include a discussion of the situation on South Franklin Street, although there were recommended measures proposed for surrounding areas of Cottage Hill.

Yet, in the cost estimates in "Attachment E" at the end, there were general estimates for the inclusion of "speed humps" on South Franklin Street. We cannot explain that discrepancy.

In the interim, as the expression goes, a lot of water has passed under the bridge, including a 2005 clarification of state law on the subject of employing speed humps.

So what follows is a bit of a primer on the background to employment of speed humps and other traffic calming measures, as would apply to our situation here on South Franklin Street.

Very recently, the Mayor touted his plans for employing "traffic calming" measures on North Franklin Street, but no mention was made of South Franklin, though we petitioned the City on the subject quite some time ago. See also this.


The discussion below is probably best understood in conjunction with the photos and discussion contained in this prior post.

New Jersey Law:

The State of New Jersey recently (2005) adopted a statute at N.J.S.A. 39:4-8.9 et seq., regarding the permissive use of speed humps on New Jersey municipal roadways, entitled appropriately enough, the "Speed Hump Law', which provides general policy guidance for the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) on the use and implementation of speed humps on certain municipal and private roads in New Jersey.

N.J.S.A. 39:4-8.9 defines speed hump:

"Speed hump" means a physical alteration to the horizontal and vertical alignment of a road surface used as a traffic calming measure and conforming to the technical standards established by the Department of Transportation."

N.J.S.A. 39:4-8.10a. specifies that

"a municipality may construct a speed hump on totally self-contained two-lane residential streets and on totally self-contained one-way residential streets under municipal jurisdiction which have no direct connection with any street in any other municipality, have fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day, with a posted speed of 30 mph or less, and on one-way streets connecting to county roads."

We believe that is precisely the situation on South Franklin Street here in Lambertville. The speed limit is 25 mph, there are no direct connections with other municipalities, and there are certainly fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day traveling on this street.

The law is permissive and allows municipalities to construct speed humps in such circumstances as "traffic calming measures" so long, as is provided at N.J.S.A. 39:4-8.11 :

"Any speed hump constructed by a municipality or a board of directors or trustees shall conform in design and construction to the technical standards established by the Department of Transportation."

and, having met all applicable notice requirements for construction in advance of placement, that:

"The signing and pavement markings for a speed hump shall conform to the current standards prescribed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways as adopted by the Commissioner of Transportation."

NJDOT:

According to the website for NJDOT,

"NJDOT has adopted the engineering practices recommended for speed humps by ITE as the applicable design standard and practice for speed humps on municipal roads. Transportation engineers should refer to the relevant ITE document for guidance."

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is an industry-standard document which is frequently referenced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and which also references ITE guidance when it comes to the use of speed humps. In addition the manual specifies recommended signage where they are employed, including use of an advisory speed plaque.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Guidance:

The ITE website links to a series of studies, e.g., this early study (’93) from Modesto, CA outlining the many potential benefits (and cautions) regarding the use of speed humps. We have been in touch with ITE (see Appendix:) and they have referred us to these studies. In addition they have published their "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps" which was initially prepared by the ITE Technical Council Speed Humps Task Force in 1995.

Here is the access link to their large manual, "Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, ITE/FHWA, August 1999."

And here is their summary document published in their Journal specifically on the use of speed humps.

Found here is an ITE example of a Traffic Hump, with a full list of potential benefits that can be derived.

And in a general policy guideline they also publish, ITE points out that speed humps can be quite beneficial in the following ways.

In general, ITE positively notes that speed humps can:

1. Reduce traffic speeds in the immediate vicinity of the speed humps,
2. Decrease traffic volume, and
3. Reduce accidents in some areas.

And at the same time they note that some potential drawbacks are:

1. Divert traffic to other neighborhood streets thereby moving the problem rather than solving it,
2. Increase noise level due to vehicle brakes, tires and engine,
3. Increase vehicle emissions due to deceleration and acceleration,
4. Increase response time of emergency vehicles,
5. Conflict with school and transit bus operation,
6. Present a potential hazard to bicyclists and motorcyclists.

In each instance, we believe the potential drawbacks are either inapposite to our situation, or are heavily outweighed by the benefits to residents that would be derived from the intelligent employment of speed humps in at least a few locations on South Franklin Street.

Potential minor infrastructure issues simply do not outweigh realistic risks to children, pedestrians, joggers, pets or property from speeders or other unsafe traffic conditions. And those risks will not go away or diminish until the City finally addresses the problem.

The Traffic Problem:

What has occurred on South Franklin Street in the past few years (since the resurfacing of the roadway) is the unwelcome diversion of traffic from other roadways to our street.

Slowing the traffic down a bit would likely redress that unwelcome diversion and help re-balance the situation.

In addition, several years ago a resident of the City and a former Commissioner of Transportation, actually secured a state funding grant for the removal the anchor fences that had surrounding the cemeteries. The resulting appearance of openness, contributed as well to the tendency of traffic to "cut through" on the roadway between St. Johns and Mt. Hope.

One unfortunate result is that an increasing number of drivers from various locations on the hill and beyond have tended to use South Franklin as a "by-pass" of sorts, which, in the case of the many speeders, has caused a few safety-related threats to arise on this street.

There are numerous stretches in the approximately 1/3 mile of the roadway that have no sidewalks; there are several blind spots and blind corners, on both the paves and unpaved portions; there are small children residing in homes along the roadway; there are a considerable number of people who use the street as a pedestrian walkway, or as a jogging route; there are several pet owners who frequently walk their pets on the roadway, including in the late evening; and there have been a few recent instances of crashes along the street, including two parked vehicles being totaled as a result of unsafe driving, no doubt going too fast for the circumstances.

The so-called issues with respect to "emissions" and noise are not applicable here. The fact is that the higher speeds result in increased emissions and in greater noise, as such drivers accelerate on their way up or down the street. We hear them and see them now!

There is also no issue here at all with respect to transit or other bus operations.

Differing Kinds of Speed Humps:

There are a variety of different kinds of speed humps, such as "speed tables," or "cushions" such as those that are in place on Ferry Street here in town, or just across the river in New Hope, which would alleviate concerns about potential concerns regarding emergency vehicles, bicycles, or motorcycles.

And with regard to the latter (bicycle safety), there are ITE studies that note that in spite of concerns about the placement of speed humps above a certain degree grade or more, result from theoretical concerns about cyclists traveling at speeds in excess of 25 mph, there are ways to ameliorate or eliminate any such potential risk. It should also be noted that the maximum speed limit on South Franklin Street is 25 mph. Therefore, anyone traveling in excess of that speed would be in violation of the speed limit, which is exactly the point!

Secondly, the study above notes that:

"Fortunately, properly designed speed humps, with gentle approach and exit gradients, flush leading edges, and smooth surfaces, do not seem to pose a significant hazard to bicyclists. British government research found that 92 percent of users of two-wheeled vehicles had no trouble crossing O.l-meter (4-inch) humps."

With proper warning signage, and/or smoothed down edges, we believe the potential for hazard can be easily eliminated. Likewise concerns regarding emergency vehicles can be eliminated as well, owing to the significantly wider wheel base of such vehicles.

In particular, there is a relatively flat stretch of the South Franklin Street roadway, beginning just above the entrance ramp to St. John’s Cemetery and ending at the turn onto Highland Avenue. It is also one of the most dangerous points along the roadway, as small children reside there, pedestrians frequently walk there, and both the approach coming up the hill, and the turn off of Highland Avenue constitute dangerous blind spots. One of the two parked cars recently totaled on South Franklin Street, was properly parked on that strip.

Costs of Implementation:

The cost of speed humps is relatively modest when measured against other traffic calming techniques, and the City could apply for pass-through federal aid for funding in conjunction with the municipal aid program or other local aid programs as a “safety project.” There are at least two federal sources – money for “Local Safety Grants, and perhaps even funding under the ”Better Roads” provisions of the High Risk Rural Roads HRRR) funding that could be explored to cover the costs of any such improvements. The key would be getting the proposal on the MPO plan for our region.

The Mayor has now also informed us, through the City's engineer that Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Authority money may be more quickly available:

At the next Council meeting the City will be authorizing a grant application to the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission which will include costs for a traffic calming study at South Franklin Street, Boozer and Highland. If approved, the grant will include construction costs for traffic control devices determined when the study is complete.

This will be a good development if it results in a more timely response, but applications in each program area could be pursued simultaneously.

If the federal-related applications were processed more slowly, then they would eventually become the "plan B" approach, or supplemental to the DRJTBC application. But there is no reason for not making those applications now. The City should pursue all avenues.

These are clearly safety-related projects, with risks being substantially reduced if a proper approach is taken. Given the fact of the petition that was submitted to the City quite some time ago, it is obvious this issue has been on the City's plate for far too long for them to ignore the potential for all funding sources. In the mean time, the risks to children, pedestrians, joggers, pets and property have been ignored.

Other "Issues":

One other issue has been raised from time to time with respect to the employment of speed humps -- the potential for legal issues arising of their use. This, however, has proved to be more of a tempest in a teapot. Here is the opening paragraph from Chapter 6 of the ITE study, entitled "Legal Authority and Liability" where it states:

The issue of government liability always surfaces in discussions of traffic calming. "What if we close a street and a fire rages on?" "What if we install speed humps and a motorcyclist goes flying?" Lawsuits and damage claims are not nearly the problem commonly assumed. In legal research in the literature, only two lawsuits against traffic calming programs have been successful, and one of those is currently under appeal. Close to 50 cities and counties were surveyed for this report, including every major program in the United States. Many have had no legal problems at all, and the remainder have experienced more threats than legal actions. The legal maneuvering has more often involved city attorneys concerned about potential liability than private attorneys claiming actual damages.

Conclusion:

We have concluded that the City certainly has the authority under State law -- and we believe the obligation -- to employ traffic calming devices on South Franklin Street, to protect the current risk to children, pedestrians, pets and property from speeders on our street.

This would include, where appropriate, the use of speed humps. We further believe that the vast majority of the street’s residents support the employment of traffic calming measures to effectively reduce the risks associated with the speeders. And, of course, we also believe that the local government can and should take whatever necessary steps, including posting warning signage and striping to minimize if not completely eliminate any possible risk to travelers that might arise from the installation of such "calming" measures.

Finally, we note that there have been a few stories in the paper specifically addressing, including this one in the Beacon, and this earlier story in the Trenton Times.

They have helped frame what has become for the residents of South Franklin Street a real concern over speeding that is a danger to everyone. Several of our neighbors have expressed their full and continuing support for our efforts to help rectify this situation.

A Mulligan . . . and Some Good News

There are many, many jokes that recite the old bromide, "first the good news, then the bads news."

The following comment posted here on our website, however, seemed to get that exactly backwards -- "First the bad news . . ." and there was indeed some good news, but first we need to tie down some loose ends.

Christine Ballard, P.E., the City's consulting engineer, posted this comment earlier today.

cballard said...

The City of Lambertville Reports: St. Johns will be installing signs identifying "No Outlet" to prevent thru traffic on the cemetary roadway. Also, the Woodcrest HomeOwner's Association will be meeting to discuss installation of a chain to prevent traffic from entering & exiting on the emergency access road to Highland Ave. It is likely a chain will be installed. At the next Council meeting the City will be authorizing a grant application to the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission which will include costs for a traffic calming study at South Franklin Street, Boozer and Highland. If approved, the grant will include construction costs for traffic control devices determined when the study is complete.

For those who were in attendance at the meeting on the evening of February 25th in the Justice Building on South Union Street, you will no doubt recall the Mayor specifically committing to everyone there that he would request St. Johns Church post the cemetery roadway "One-Way," from South Franklin Street to Boozer Street, not "No Outlet."

You may also recall the general agreement, including comments by the Police Director discussing the posting of the "One-Way" signs for enforcement purposes.

You may also recall Paul Gorecki asking the Mayor the very pertinent question, "Why the change of heart?" given the City's previous opposition to a "One-Way" designation at the January Regular Council meeting.

After the meeting on the 25th, and because of our desire to follow up on the matters discussed, I personally stopped by St. Johns Church and spoke to Rev. Kolakowski that Friday, February 27th. He confirmed to me that in an earlier conversation that day with Paul Cronce, he had committed to making the roadway "One-Way."

That discussion was reported here twice, first by Paul Gorecki, and then again by me.

It was also posted in the comments appended to an article dated February 25th on the subject, in the Lambertville Beacon (subscribers only for older articles).

LAMBERTVILLE: South Franklin residents seek solution for speeding
LAMBERTVILLE -- Concerned about speeders, South Franklin Street residents planned to meet Wednesday (Feb. 25) with city officials and an engineer at the Justice Center to brainstorm a deterrent.

In fact, at the instruction of the Mayor during our meeting on the 25th, Paul Cronce had gone there earlier on Friday and the Church had committed to making the roadway "One-Way."

At no time was there ever any discussion of resolving the safety issue by posting or requesting the posting of "No Outlet" signs.

Such a posting would unfortunately serve no useful purpose. It would be largely (if not completely) unenforceable, and would therefore be utterly ignored. As proof, one need only consider the history of non-compliance with the "Emergency Vehicle Access Only" sign up at Woodcrest.

Earlier this evening, following a written exchange with Christine Ballard, and then on the phone with the Mayor, a commitment was made to me by them to follow up on this particular matter. As I recall, the Mayor referenced it as "a Mulligan."

As for the remainder of Christine's comment, it certainly sounds like good news, but as Paul Gorecki astutely observed in a prior post here,

"Even though an initial plan of action was conveyed at this week’s meeting by the Mayor, it will be necessary that we, as residents, continue to monitor its progress."

Well said.

Local Speed Humps & Traffic Calming

Local Speed Humps Applications
Their Use in Lambertville, NJ & the Surrounding Area

In urging the City of Lambertville to implement an overall plan to resolve the problem of dangerous speeding on South Franklin Street, the residents have promoted the employment of traffic calming strategies, including where appropriate, the installation of speed humps.

As the Mayor himself indicated in a February 25th meeting with our group, the employment of speed humps on South Union Street downtown, has proven to be a successful venture. He told the assembled residents that the single most persistent complaint he receives as Mayor, from nearly every area of town, is about speeding.

But, he said that there has been a very dramatic reduction in such complaints from the South Union Street area since the City employed a series of speed humps there several years ago. At the time, the Mayor was a resident at Raritan Point, just around the corner, and he supported the idea.

And, the Mayor also noted that some of the then big critics of putting in speed humps down on South Union Street, have since become avid supporters, having apparently come to appreciate the benefits of such traffic calming measures.

More recently, the City employed the use of speed humps when they resurfaced Ferry Street, between South Union and Main Street.

According to Ferry Street resident, John Woods, Ferry Street had become a "short cut" for some drivers to avoid traffic on Bridge Street, increasing the traffic flow there. He said a block association on Ferry Street had advocated for the employment of speed humps to slow their traffic down.

Diamond-shaped speed humps, or "cushions" were eventually placed on Ferry Street, ones that do not bridge across the entire street width (see photo).

According to Mr. Woods, some held reservations at the time that drivers would simply try to "game" or try to drive around the diamond-shaped humps. That concern proved to be largely unfounded with respect to the vast majority of vehicles that drive on Ferry Street.

"They work," Woods said about the speed humps.

One other type of speed hump is what is called a "speed table," which is flatter on the top than the standard traffic speed hump.

This appears to be similar to the type of speed hump that was employed on West Ferry Street in downtown New Hope Boro, just across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania.

This particular speed hump (see photo) is located on the slope, just short of where West Ferry Street intersects with Route 179 as it heads into Solebury Township. The top of the hump is fairly flat, although as you can see, it does not reach all the way to the curb, as with most speed tables.

(Upcoming:)

The next post will include a brief examination and analysis of the New Jersey state statute governing the use of speed humps, the New Jersey Department of Transportation policy declaration regarding the same, references to the industry-standard Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the relevant Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidance on their use, each as they apply in general and to the safety situation here on South Franklin.

Website Announcement to Residents

(An e-mailed note about this website, with minor corrections, that was sent out to residents and other interested parties.)

Fellow South Franklin Street Resident,

Here is our new blog, the South Franklin Street Project in Lambertville, NJ. Two prior posts up so far -- with much more to come.

A large group of our residents on South Franklin Street had a successful meeting with Mayor David DelVecchio, the engineer, Christine Ballard, P.E., Paul Cronce, the Public Works Director, and Bruce Cocuzza, the Police Director, on Wednesday, February 25th at the Justice Complex, where we addressed speeding and other roadway safety issues on our street.

Prior "determinations" were set aside, and a good airing of concerns took place -- that is, once we figured out how to use the City's video projection equipment! We went through our PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate to them some of the specific issues. For those who attended, you may recognize many of the photos included in that presentation on the first post at this new website.

As you may have read per an e-mail communication from Paul Gorecki after the meeting (and posted here, below), I held a brief conversation at the end of the week with Rev. Kolakowski at St. Johns, and learned that they had graciously agreed to a "One-Way" designation for the private roadway running between the two cemeteries, the drive connecting South Franklin Street to Boozer Street. For a few reasons, including the steep ramp on this side, we believe this is a very good development for improving safety here on South Franklin Street.

We also expect the issue regarding the "emergency access" to Woodcrest will be resolved quickly, as was committed to by Mayor DelVecchio at our meeting on the 25th. However, we have heard nothing further about the issue since our meeting. Details and a photo are in the first post here.

We have also decided we need a good way to directly communicate, and this website is the result. You'll see the note just posted by Paul Gorecki, communicating some results of that meeting, and important follow-up information. He also has posted a reminder of our next meeting with City officials, at 7 PM on Thursday, 03/19, at the Justice Complex, 25 S. Union St. in Lambertville. By that time, we believe the City engineer will have completed some survey work of South Franklin Street and adjoining Highland Avenue, and will have some recommendations on ways to proceed with employing traffic calming measures on the street.

Our general concern -- improving roadway safety here by reducing speeding and addressing other unsafe roadway conditions - was outlined in detail in the first post on the website in a post I wrote.

Some time ago, you may remember that we petitioned the Mayor and Council to employ "traffic calming" measures, including speed humps, to reduce or eliminate the incidents of speeding on our roadway. To be frank, we received some "lip service" but no effective response.

Here, for example is a City Council Agenda (pdf) from as recently as this past May 19th, with a posted item under "12. Unfinished Business ..."c. South Franklin Street speed reduction measures." All we were ever told was that the City's then-engineer had determined that regulations prohibited speed humps and similar measures from being employed as a result of the slope of the street. Our research -- which we have since forwarded to City officials -- shows that was simply untrue.

In the course of a few meetings at City Council in January and February, a group of us -- Eleanor Vorhees, Paul Gorecki and myself -- revived our concerns. But we quickly realized that our efforts would only succeed if we banded together and effectively and consistently pressed our specific concerns.

We do not want to have solutions dictated to us . . . we want to participate and help guide the development of those responses. We made that clear in last Wednesday's meeting with City stakeholders.

So, this website may be a first. A small, loosely organized neighborhood group has set up a website for the purpose of communicating directly with one another, as well as with the media, local government officials . . . or with anyone else who is interested.

The benefits are that we can immediately communicate our concerns, including soliciting comments and reactions from everyone on the street having internet access.

We will also be able to more effectively communicate those concerns to the local government officials, without having to pass through a media filter, or cope with what might be called ODS . . . an "official delay syndrome." As we all know, that can sometimes crop up to stifle progress.
This way, we will not have to wait for the schedule of the City Council for updates, or for a surprise announcement to be made that will change the "plan," or for the Director of Such-and-Such to speak to so-and-so, and get back to the Council next month, or read fading posters on telephone poles, or find reminders of changed meeting times left in the mailbox, or notes slipped through the door, or missed telephone messages . . . this is direct communication. The posters will still be there, along with the notes and telephone messages. But the information will also be posted here.

We can post quickly, and in turn, all stakeholders, including City officials, are invited to comment likewise. Establishing a Google account profile is very easy, and commenters can also comment using LiveJournal, WordPress, TypePad, AIM, or simply an open ID. We invite everyone's participation.

At the website, we will be able to post our research, links to governmental and organizational websites, our photos, maps, videos, all of which will be intended to promote making these safety-related changes in our street.

We will also post links to various newspaper articles that have been written about this issue, such as this recent Beacon story (with comments) or this recent Trenton Times story. And we will share information with them as well.

We have an open agenda, some good background research, good contacts, and most importantly, an interested and active group of residents who want their street to be made more safe. We'll be able to e-mail links to updates directly to the City's engineer, as well as to the Mayor and any of the council members who choose to make e-mail addresses available to us, to the City Clerk, or to any other stakeholders.

And we will do all we can to bring it all to bear on the problem. For all those who forwarded your encouragement, or who attended the meeting last Wednesday, thank you again.

Cordially,

Steve Robbins
65D South Franklin

S. Franklin St. - St. John's Cemetery Rd / Traffic Calming Measures

Hi Everyone:

The purpose of this e-mail is to inform you that Steve Robbins met with Father Kolakowski of St. John’s Church yesterday, Friday, 02/27. At the conclusion of that meeting, Steve was able to confirm that St, John’s will make its cemetery road one way, where motorists will travel eastbound entering the cemetery from S. Franklin St. and exiting onto Boozer St. Moreover, that the appropriate signs designating the road as one way may be installed as early as next week.

This is a significant success for all residents of S. Franklin St. and I’d like to thank everyone for your presence and participation during last Wednesday’s, 02/25, meeting with the Mayor and select city officials. Of course, a special thanks to both Steve Robbins and Eleanor Voorhees for their relentless effort on this issue. Via letters, meetings, research, interviews, presentations etc. this has been a collective two-year pursuit for the three of us. Even so, proactive measures with the city and the church were not successful. It was not until my vehicle was totaled while parked in my driveway in January that they finally listened. I cannot help but think that this could have been avoided.

Nonetheless, I am so happy to see that a favorable resolution has finally been reached. Since I purchased my property in 1999, I have stopped counting the number of times vehicles turning from the cemetery road have made wide turns onto our street and have rode the sidewalk nearly ending up in my front yard. I now feel a sense of relief that when I park my car in my driveway, it stands a reduced risk of being totaled. Please allow these reasons to explain my level of engagement and persistence with the Mayor the other night as to how quickly something would be implemented to address this issue.

There still remains the other issue concerning the speed motorists travel our street (i.e., Swan St. to Highland Ave.). Even though an initial plan of action was conveyed at this week’s meeting by the Mayor, it will be necessary that we, as residents, continue to monitor its progress. We have already provided the city a detailed report with alternatives for various traffic calming measures. In addition, Steve Robbins conveyed to the Mayor potential funding sources that could assist in the implementation of proposed options once determined.

Let’s continue to make our efforts effective and impress upon the city the need to be proactive. The implementation of traffic calming measures that make our street safe for our children, pedestrians, our pets and our property is our goal. Your presence at the next meeting, 7 PM Thursday, 03/19, at the Justice Complex, 25 S. Union St., is very much appreciated. We hope to see you there again.

Thank You,
Paul Gorecki
87 S. Franklin St.

Speeding: An Issue on South Franklin St.

Several residents living along South Franklin Street in Lambertville, New Jersey, have decided to establish this website as an effective way to openly share and communicate neighborly information regarding safety issues and other matters of mutual concern with all of those living along our street, and any other interested party.

From time to time, we will focus on proposing solutions to these serious safety issues. Where appropriate, we will continue to bring our perspective to the attention of the City Council of Lambertville for resolution.

A few years ago, many of our residents signed and forwarded a petition to the Mayor and the City Council, asking them to address a problem involving speeding and other unsafe driving conditions which had emerged, and that we believed were partially attributable to the resurfacing of our roadway several years ago.

South Franklin Street runs up a hill, beginning from an intersection with Swan Street, just a few feet from where the latter intersects with the state Highway, Route 165.

The roadway proceeds past historic Mt. Hope Cemetery on the left, and several residences on the right, including both single unit homes and townhouses as well.

There are several entrances along the roadway from which pedestrian and other traffic enter, including two roadway ramps and a stairway coming from Mount Hope Cemetery, and a roadway ramp coming from the southern end of St. Johns Cemetery. The two roadway ramps from Mount Hope are closed to thru vehicular traffic.

As these photos demonstrate, there are some steep portions along the way, but the roadway levels out considerably near the top, where it ultimately intersects at an acute angle with the lower end of Highland Avenue.

That intersection is at a sharp and relatively blind left turn. Over all, the currently paved portion of the roadway spans about 1/3 mile from Swan Street up to Highland Avenue.

At that point, South Franklin Street continues on straight ahead as a dirt road extension, where several additional homes are situated. It is a "dead end" extension, with no thru traffic.

As a residential street, the speed limit on South Franklin is set at 25 mph. Because of the speeding and other unsafe conditions on the street, we have identified specific risks that our efforts are intended to reduce.

We believe these are the four primary safety risks:

1) There are small children living on our hill, and speeding coupled with a few blind spots along the roadway, absolutely require that that risk be adequately addressed;

2) South Franklin has become a commonly used walkway for pedestrians and joggers, even though there are a few stretches without sidewalks;

3) Several folks along the street have pets, including dogs that they walk along the roadway at a variety of times, including late in the evening, and;

4) Finally, there is a very real risk to property arising out of the combination of speeding and blind spots. Within the very recent past two parked vehicles owned by residents have been totaled following crashes that occurred as a result of driving too quickly for the conditions along the roadway.

Following the street resurfacing, South Franklin became a tempting "by-pass" of sorts for some, allowing short-cut access to other areas of Cottage Hill, the Woodcrest condominiums, as well as a number of homes on the upper "dirt road" extension of South Franklin Street itself. The problem is the recently repaved surface has become an enticement to those in a hurry, and speeding along our roadway has become a serious issue.

Thus, while that road resurfacing work did successfully address several issues, including smoothing out the roadway for travel back and forth, and solved some of the drainage, or storm water runoff problems so often associated with life on a hillside, there was a consequential downside.

The repair had actually changed traffic patterns here on Cottage Hill by attracting significant additional traffic to our roadway. The newly resurfaced South Franklin Street became the pathway of choice for many other residents living elsewhere on Cottage Hill, the Northfield Court area, as well as in the Woodcrest condominium complex, and beyond, some speeders included.

But in response to our petition -- which was signed by the vast majority of our residents -- no action was taken by the City, other than a minor amount of law enforcement monitoring, and a claim that the City's engineer had determined that no traffic calming devices (such as the employment of speed humps) were permitted on the roadway, as a result of the slope of the hill. Nothing, however, was ever presented to us in writing. As recently as February of this year we were told by a city official that because of the slope of the hill, "regulations" prohibited the use of speed humps on South Franklin. However, our research quite clearly showed otherwise, and we have used that research to challenge City officials.

Finally, a "traffic calming" plan had been prepared for the City of Lambertville back in 2003, with specific recommendations for several areas of the City. But South Franklin Street was not included in that plan.


View Larger Map

Those changing traffic patterns on our street were further enhanced by the removal of the fences around both cemeteries a few years ago -- Mount Hope and St. Johns -- in effect, opening up the area and inviting vehicle traffic to the parallel roadways of a resurfaced Highland Avenue at the north end, and the also newly-surfaced private roadway running between the two cemeteries from Boozer Street to South Franklin Street.

That private drive (not marked on the embedded map, above) had more recently became a popular two-way access road, to and from town. It intersects Boozer Street between Lincoln and Douglas Streets on the eastern side of the cemeteries, via a steep ramp emptying onto a sharply sloping location of South Franklin Street.

Owing to the landscaping of an adjacent property, there is also a "blind spot" there with respect to traffic coming down South Franklin Street at that location.

Especially during inclement weather conditions, such as when it is snow or ice covered (see photo below), that sharp ramp has exacerbated safety conditions here on the South Franklin Street side.

On the Boozer Street side, however, the landscape is relatively flat at the intersection with the St. John's roadway, and on approaching the intersection, the view in unimpeded in all directions where it intersects Boozer Street at a "T" in between Lincoln and Douglas streets.

The risk is not theoretical. Recently, for example, a vehicle traveling from Boozer Street toward South Franklin, lost control on that ramp and crashed into and totaled a car parked in the owner's driveway here on the South Franklin Street side. Had the resident's car not been parked there, the moving vehicle might well have crashed into a house.

The private roadway is owned by St. Johns Church here in Lambertville, and was originally intended to provide vehicular access for funeral processions, and for people visiting the gravesites of their loved ones. It is also used by the Lambertville Fire Company, as the member memorial monument for all of the City's various fire companies, located on a knoll on the Mount Hope side of the roadway. Occasionally memorial events are held at the monument by the firefighters.

In addition, a designated and marked emergency vehicle access to the Woodcrest condominium complex in the Liberty View Court section of the complex, intersects Highland Avenue at the top of Boozer Street. (It is shown as a narrow-necked connector on the embedded map.) "Click" on photo to see enlarged version.

Though marked as an emergency way only, it has not been enforced as such. In fact, it has become an entrance and/or exit of choice for some of the residents of the complex even though it is officially designated as an emergency connector. The sign posted at the entrance specifically reads "Emergency Vehicle Access Only." The entrance to Woodcrest is located on Studdiford Street opposite Northfield Court, where it becomes Goat Hill Road heading into West Amwell Township.

Recently, a group of residents of South Franklin Street voiced their concerns to the City Council over incidents of vehicle speeding and other dangerous conditions here on the hill. Though the City had initially opposed designating the St. John's roadway as "One-Way", that has changed. On Wednesday evening, February 25th, during a meeting with a larger group of South Franklin Street residents held to address their safety concerns, the Mayor indicated that the City would approach St. Johns about designating it as a "One-Way." Having not heard anything from City officials, one member of our group stopped by the Church on the afternoon of Friday the 27th and met briefly with Reverend Robert Kolakowski. He said that the Church had met with City officials, and had agreed to designate the roadway one way going in the direction of Boozer Street.

According to Father Kolakowski, the "One-Way" signs could go up as early as the the next week -- the first week of March.

During that meeting on the 25th, Mayor DelVecchio also committed to enforcing the official designation of the "emergency access only" means of egress to Woodcrest as well, which should also relieve some of the unintended vehicular traffic on South Franklin Street. Specifically, the access roadway will be chained across. He reiterated that the initial approved plan for the complex from the start had that access point designated for emergency vehicle access only.

Additionally, the City's consulting engineer, Christine Ballard, P.E., of T&E Engineering, will examine the other portions of the roadway for the employment of traffic calming devices, including, among others, speed humps, speed tables, speed cushions, and/or possible raised crosswalks using non-skid granular material, and roadway "narrowing" markings, each intended to contribute to an overall strategy for slowing down or reducing the pace of the traffic on our residential roadway, and ameliorating the serious safety risks we have brought to the attention of the City.

No one element will solve the overall problem, but we are hopeful if the city addresses each of the issues, our quality of life will be significantly improved, and the current risks to our safety greatly diminished.