More On The Faulty Traffic Signal

08/31/2010 -- The following Google Earth "360 photo" illustrates the sweeping nature of the turn at the corner of Swan Street and Route 165, at the bottom of our hill.

Once the photo comes up into focus, you can use the directional wheel (located at the top left), to view the entire intersection -- all 360 degrees!

If you click the left arrow on that wheel just once, you will get a very good view of the entire southeast corner of the intersection, taken from the middle of the street, out on Route 165. Hit it a second time and that angle -- looking straight up Swan Street -- illustrates how the viewpoint of both drivers and pedestrians who are emerging from South Franklin Street, simply do not have a clear line of sight of northbound traffic that may be turning off of Route 165 onto Swan Street, until it is dangerously close to them. Many residents on the street, and others who use this route, have complained that they must inch well out onto Swan Street, before getting enough visibility of the corner to feel safe enough to proceed.

It is dangerous! This problem was not taken into account when the light was designed, even though numerous City officials were informed of it. Take a look.


View Larger Map

You may have also noticed that this "360 photo" was taken before the installation of the new traffic signal.

The last post here outlined two problems . . . one was this lack of a clear line of sight while emerging from South Franklin. The second problem was made plain by this photo:

Anyone pedestrian operating the traffic signal down on Route 165 on that corner cannot see down Route 165, and is currently compelled to step into the roadway of Route 165 in order to see. If a vehicle is coming up 165, and especially if it has a green light and is turning onto Swan Street, the extreme danger to pedestrians is obvious.

But just pointing out problems is not constructive, unless one is also willing to offer a reasonable solution.

So, what we are now proposing as at least a temporary solution to both of these problems, would be for officials to "square off" the intersection, perhaps by installing a line of highly visible and ground-mounted vertical delineators, or similar devices that are actually attached to the roadway, in order to gently lead traffic turning right onto Swan Street, and into a more squared-off pattern instead of being able to tightly sweep the corner.

While these devices are very visible, if they are bumped or brushed by a vehicle, they fold over and do not do damage to the vehicle.

Such a temporary solution would be very inexpensive, and it could safely serve to resolve the problems until adequate funding for a more permanent solution (reconfiguring the corner) can be implemented. Considering the extraordinary length of time it took the City to implement this traffic light "solution" having a temporary solution in place could reduce the risks involved and possibly save lives.

Here are the four basic beneficial effects from the solution I am offering as a suggestion:

a.) it would slow down the northbound traffic on Route 165 making any right turn onto Swan Street; b.) it would bring that traffic a little further north, so that both pedestrians and vehicles emerging from South Franklin Street would actually be able to safely see those vehicles making the turn onto Swan Street; c.) it would allow pedestrians waiting for the light to turn to get a safe look down Route 165 before stepping into the roadway; and d.) it would actually shorten the distance pedestrians need to travel while walking across Route 165.

Problems With New Traffic Signal

08/27/2010 -- There are two apparent, and I believe significant design problems with the new traffic light that has been installed at the corner of Swan Street and Route 165 in Lambertville, which design flaws have resulted in unnecessary safety hazards affecting both pedestrians and drivers of motor vehicles.

One of those two problems -- the failure to "square off" the corner of Route 165, has caused a serious blind spot affecting drivers and pedestrians emerging from South Franklin Street out onto Swan Street. That flaw was specifically drawn to the attention of the Mayor and other City officials on a number of occasions, both before and after the installation of the traffic light.

The design defect was also specifically pointed out to one of the City engineers, Christine Ballard, during a "walk around" tour of South Franklin Street she conducted with a few residents, back before the final approval of the traffic calming project for South Franklin. I do not know whether she passed on that information to the Mayor, or to the other City engineer, who may have drawn the design for the traffic light.

And, I also specifically drew this problem to the attention of Council President Steve Stegman at one of the several meetings with residents on the traffic calming proposal. He chaired that meeting when the Mayor was unavailable to make it.

So, what I do know is that the City went ahead with the installation of this traffic light, and they ignored this serious design problem despite the fact that it had been specifically brought to the attention of several city officials.

The following two photos illustrate this first problem. The first one shows the actual line of sight of a driver if he or she is properly stopped at the stop sign at the bottom of South Franklin, and presuming that the front of his or her vehicle is bordering on the edge of the crosswalk. Such a driver could not see an oncoming driver, even if the vehicle was beginning up the ramp onto Swan Street.

The second photo illustrates where a vehicle has to be out onto Swan Street in order for the operator to be able to get a line of sight of possible oncoming vehicles making the turn onto swan Street. Any such driver must at the same time be attentive to possible vehicles proceeding down Swan Street as well. Note the location of the "crosswalk line" which would now be at the back of the vehicle! A driver would have to be nearly completely out onto Swan Street before he or she has a suitable line of sight of potential oncoming traffic coming off of Route 165.

Anyone driving a vehicle and entering onto Swan Street from South Franklin, has to actually drive out into the street in order to be able to observe whether any vehicles are turning right at that intersection. A driver traveling northbound on Route 165, who has a green light can currently "sweep around" that corner onto Swan Street, and may risk a crash with any vehicle coming out of South Franklin, especially one that has inched well out into the roadway in order to see if anyone is coming off 165.

The design for the installation of the traffic light should have included squaring off the corner so that vehicles making that right turn would be required to slow down and proceed closer to the actual intersection before making that right-hand turn. That would have made such vehicles more visible to drivers of vehicles coming out of South Franklin Street.

That is a dangerous flaw in the design and it should have never been approved that way by the City.

The second obvious design flaw is that the pedestrian signal button was installed on a post located behind a large black relay box that was also placed there at the time of the installation of the light. The installation resulted in another blind spot.

As is obvious from the photo, any pedestrian who is operating the traffic signal button on the Cottage Hill side of the street, simply cannot be seen at all by northbound drivers traveling on Route 165, and conversely, a pedestrian operating the signal cannot see any oncoming traffic because of the location of the signal box.

In fact, as the following photo illustrates, a pedestrian must literally step out into the highway to be able to see, or be seen by any oncoming traffic. The operator of any vehicle with a green light who wishes to make the right hand turn onto Swan Street, can currently "sweep" around very close to that corner because of the dangerous design. It would be very difficult or even impossible to stop in time if a pedestrian suddenly stepped onto the roadway to see if a car or other vehicle was oncoming.

Likewise, a vehicle with a green light who is proceeding through the intersection may well be traveling in the right-hand lane, and close to the curb.

The speed limit on Route 165 at that precise location is 35 miles per hour, but it is common knowledge throughout the community that drivers frequently exceed that speed.

Even under the best of roadway conditions (dry pavement, full daylight) and with good brakes, and good reaction time on the part of the driver, an average car traveling at 35 mph needs approximately 100 feet to come to a stop.

This federal standards chart, which became effective just at the end of April, 2010, is the most recent federal standard for braking distance requirements for three axle trucks, which comprise the vast majority of the truck fleet on the highway today. Therefore, it is the federal standard for stopping distances in feet that relate to the typical three-axle trucks one would likely encounter on the roadway today. PFC stands for "peak friction coefficient" and the stopping distances indicated are from the actual application of the brakes until the vehicle comes to a complete stop. They do not include the reaction time of the driver.

Thus, in the best of dry road conditions, a truck traveling at the allowed speed limit of 35 mph, would need a minimum of just under 100 feet to come to a stop once the brakes are applied. One traveling at 40 mph, would need a minimum of 125 feet to come to a stop once the brakes are applied.

As can be seen from this photo, any pedestrian in that blind spot, who therefore could not be seen by any driver coming up Route 165, and who stepped out into the roadway in order to be able to see if there was any oncoming traffic, would simply not have a chance if a vehicle traveling in the right lane was close to the intersection, regardless of whether any such oncoming vehicle was a truck or a car!


Therefore, it is my opinion that this traffic signal, as currently configured, is literally a pedestrian fatality just waiting to happen. The City should take immediate action to correct this problem. In fact, they never should have approved it with these design flaws in the first place.

Snow Removal Issues – South Franklin Street

08-23-2010 -- The following is a first draft outlining recommended snow removal issues as relate to South Franklin Street in Lambertville, NJ, which was respectfully submitted to the Mayor’s Volunteer Snow Removal Committee at the first public meeting of the committee, held on August 23, 2010, at the Lambertville Justice Complex, 25 South Union Street, Lambertville, NJ 08530, beginning at 7:00 PM.

SCOPE OF PROBLEM

South Franklin Street, located on the western edge of Cottage Hill, is one of the first areas within the City to be salted by City trucks. It is also one of the first areas of the City to be plowed. The apparent reason is that South Franklin Street is one of only two streets providing access to the Woodcrest Condominium complex, and to other populated developments that are located on Cottage Hill.

At the top of South Franklin, plows and salt trucks can turn left onto Highland Avenue in order to access the other areas of the hill. The only other primary means of access to that area, is by way of Swan Street, and then Studdiford Street, which eventually becomes Goat Hill Road. Both ways have steep slopes, and each is vulnerable to the potential for being blocked by accidents, fallen trees, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Thus, our street is an important means of access to the upper reaches of the hill, and a key means of access throughout Cottage Hill. It is imperative to keep it open to traffic during storms, both for the convenience of residents, and also for the potential needs of circumstances requiring the dispatching emergency vehicles.

Distinct Areas Along South Franklin Street

For the purposes of snow removal, the paved portion of South Franklin Street can be seen as being comprised of three distinct areas. There is another area along the "dirt road" section of the roadway that has not been addressed in this first draft. It will be address in a future draft.

The Upper Area – Running from the turn onto Highland Avenue, down to the entrance of St John’s Cemetery, the upper area is relatively flat by comparison with the rest of the street. Parking is only permitted on the "western" or river side of the street. This fact is critical to an understanding of the impact of snow removal. Clearly, snow removal is easier in that area because the trucks are not impeded by parked vehicles on the "uphill" side of the street. A construction plan currently being executed for traffic calming on that portion of the street, calls for the inclusion of two "speed cushions" to reduce the incidence of speeding in that area. Because they are cushions, and not true 'speed humps"” the presence of these this should not in any way impede the snow removal process.

The Middle area – This section, which runs sharply down hill from the one-way entrance to St. Johns Cemetery roadway down to the upper entrance of the Mt. Hope Cemetery, allows for parking on the "up-hill" side of the roadway, as well as on the "river" side. However, there are only three homes along this section, and only infrequently are vehicles parked on the opposite side. Therefore, there is no real problem in clearing the snow from the street in that section, and there is a stretch where plowed snow could easily be pushed to the side along the Mt. Hope side to easily avoid interference with vehicles parked in the driveways along the "river side." Two bump-outs being constructed a a part of the "traffic calming" plan will likewise not impede snow removal.

The Lower Area – This stretch of the roadway, from the upper entrance to the Mt. Hope Cemetery down to the perpendicular intersection with Swan Street, is the most problematic with respect to snow removal. For one reason, there are a significant number of town house properties located along that stretch, which simply means that there are more vehicles likely to be parked along the roadway than on any other section.

Secondly, parking is permitted on both sides of the street throughout most of that stretch, and therefore the operation of the snow plows, during any significant snowfall, is much likely to result in vehicles being "plowed in," even vehicles that have been previously dug out by their owners.

There is a need for some level of coordination between the dispatchers of the plow operators and the residential vehicle owners to avoid repetition of this cycle of frustration. It involves a considerable amount of extra physical exertion by the residents, and is sometimes complicated further by freezing and icing of the plowed snow.

One of the consequences is that residents will then dig their vehicles out and throw the snow back into the street, potentially creating a secondary hazard. These complications need to be reduced.

The problem could possibly be addressed in a few ways. One would be for Public Works to plan for the quick removal of the plowed snow. A second would be to identify a designated location to plow the snow to, pending its ultimate removal by truck, or melting if that is unfeasible. Another would be to consider plowing away from the parked vehicles, and collecting or "storing" the snow in an area that does not block residential parking, such as in the entrance to the lower Mt. Hope drive, or along the stretch of open roadway area on the river side of the roadway, between the upper entrance to Mt. Hope and the first house. However, this would require discussion and agreement with the cemetery official, and/or the property owners involved.

# # # # #

Please understand that this first draft was intended as a preliminary look at the problem, NOT as a plan.

Hopefully it will form the basis for developing a more complete plan.

I held discussions with a few residents along the roadway in order to formulate this first draft, but input by the residents is important to consideration of all potential issues involved. So, please feel free to comment.

Before putting together the first draft, I asked the Mayor and Clerk if there was any particular format for composing this document and they said there was none they were aware of. Any suggestions in that regard will be welcome as well.

I am posting it here on the website of the http://southfranklinstreetproject.blogspot.com/ in order to actively solicit more helpful input. If you have any observations or comments you would like to add regarding snow removal, please feel free to comment on this post.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Robbins
65 D South Franklin Street, ssrobbinslville@aol.com