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.