City Approved Design For Traffic Signal

Monday, 09/19/2011, 9 pm -- At their regular meeting for the month of September earlier this evening, the Lambertville City Council finally approved a long-awaited design plan for the improvement of the intersection with the traffic light at Route 165 and Swan Street.

Once implemented, the new plan will likely result in the significant improvement of safety at that intersection for both vehicular traffic, and for pedestrians as well.

The original site plan, pursuant to which the traffic light was installed at the intersection, was originally approved by NJDOT back in mid-2009. Though City officials had been informed of a basic flaw in the design, and had reportedly had discussions regarding the flaw, they nevertheless failed to submit an amendment to the proposal they had sent to NJDOT seeking approval for the original installation of the traffic light.

That original design plan did not provide for the "squaring off" of the southeast corner of the intersection, as had been specifically recommended to the Mayor and other City officials on a few occasions. The failure to include that element in the original plan, or to amend the original proposal, resulted in the maintenance of a "blind spot" for vehicles and pedestrians, especially for those emerging from South Franklin Street, whether the vehicles were turning left onto Swan Street or going straight across the Swan Creek Bridge on South Franklin in the direction of the intersection of 165/518 & Quarry St., known locally as "the hook."

The implemented design was especially dangerous for pedestrians crossing Swan Street at South Franklin. Drivers and pedestrians were forced to literally drive or walk out onto Swan street to get a view of whether quickly moving traffic was coming off of Route 165 and turning onto Swan.

The State-approved amendment to the original plan, which had been recently received by the City and which was ratified at tonight's meeting, will result in a more "squared off" corner at the corner of Route 165 and Swan. Implementation of that plan will improve the safety of that intersection for both vehicular traffic and for pedestrians by slowing down, or "calming" traffic turning onto Swan Street, thereby improving both the visibility and the reaction time of vehicular and pedestrian traffic emerging from South Franklin Street.

The New Jersey State Department of Transportation had received numerous complaints about the original implemented design, and officials there had appointed a task force of various stakeholders within the Department to evaluate the complaints, and the correction proposed by the City was eventually approved by NJDOT.

Our original post herein about the major safety problems was dated over a year ago in August 2010. The second design flaw involved the location of the signal device, which created a "blind spot" problem for pedestrians preparing to cross Route 165 with the light. To some extent, the broadening of the pedestrian entrance ramp into the crosswalk on Route 165 addresses that second problem, as the original design had pedestrians literally stepping directly into the roadway from behind the large switch box that was blocking their view of oncoming traffic coming from down Route 165.

We also posted additional information regarding those design problems, first here, then we posted one specifically addressing stopping distances here, and finally we released a post exposing disturbing details about the prior knowledge of the design flaws by City officials.

Below is an electronic copy of the design improvement, as was approved by City Council earlier this evening. If you "right click" on the design, you can then open it in a separate tab or window for derailed viewing. In that format, it is further "enlargable" by simply clicking once on the image.

City Asked NJDOT to Approve Unsafe Traffic Signal

City Officials Were Told of Safety Problems in '09; Went Ahead With Flawed Plan

10-30-2010 --* A new "corrective plan" is being studied by Lambertville City officials for possible submission to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), a sketch of a design intended to address publicized flaws in the nearly year-old installation of the traffic signal at Route 165 and Swan Street. A copy of that "corrective plan" has been obtained by the South Franklin Street Project (embedded below).

According to an official familiar with that corrective plan, City officials had quietly agreed amongst themselves back in 2009 at the time NJDOT was reviewing the permit application for their original design, that safety problems did indeed exist in their plan. But they concluded that the safety problems should not be addressed before the permit was acted on by the NJDOT. I personally described the safety problem to several of them, and on more than one occasion.

The person did not say precisely when those discussions among city officials took place, but conceded that they had, and also acknowledged that the City did not seek to correct the recognized safety problems through any amended submission to the Department for fear that doing anything that might jeopardize the permit filing then being considered by the NJDOT.

Once City officials secured a permit "go ahead" back in mid-2009, to install the traffic light (having overcome initial Department rejection of their original proposal) they then went ahead and fully implemented the original flawed plan about a year ago, during the fall of that year. Thus, they installed the traffic signal in spite of being aware of both vehicle and pedestrian safety problems associated with it, in particular those dangers associated with a "sweep corner" coming off of Route 165, for vehicles turning right onto Swan Street. The biggest risk they were aware of was the possibility of impact with vehicles and/or pedestrians emerging from South Franklin Street onto or across Swan Street.

Moreover, once the permit was secured, City officials thereafter made no effort to correct those known safety flaws by preparing and/or submitting a corrective plan, that is, until a few citizen complaints about safety problems were filed very recently with NJDOT, and after exposure of those problems were detailed here on this website -- the South Franklin Street Project -- in late August and early September of this year.

In fact, the original design for the traffic signal installation also contained a "design flaw," one that created a "blind spot," an entirely new pedestrian danger caused by the location of the push-button signal switch on the east side of Route 165, behind a large black relay switch box. That location makes it impossible for pedestrians operating the signal to see traffic approaching the intersection along Route 165 without actually endangering themselves by literally stepping out into the roadway! Conversely, it makes it impossible for pedestrians to be seen by vehicle operators approaching the intersection along Route 165.

And yet, even after knowing of both pedestrian and vehicle safety problems associated with the intersection, City officials, including the Police Director, Bruce Cocuzza, also began promoting their intent to issue jaywalking citations to pedestrians who did not use the traffic signal while crossing Route 165! Stories appeared in two local newspapers, including this one published on October 7, 2010, in the Hunterdon County Democrat, promoted after officials began circulating a draft "corrective plan" to eliminate the pedestrian safety problems at the intersection, and obviously before it has been fixed!

Well before those jay-walking enforcement stories were printed, at least two citizen complaints about the traffic signal were filed with the NJDOT in late August and very early September of this year, detailing both the vehicle and pedestrian safety problems associated with the original plan and installation, including one specific complaint addressing the design flaw creating the "blind spot." Only after the filing of those complaints did the City respond at some point by having their proposed "corrective plan" drawn and circulated among certain City officials in late September of this year.

The proposed "corrective plan," a copy of which is embedded below, is a schematic plan drawn by or at the behest of City Engineer Robert Clerico, P.E. of Van Cleef Engineering of Lebanon, New Jersey. It purports to "square the corner" a bit to correct and improve the significant vehicle and pedestrian safety problems. A proposal recommending that idea -- the "squaring" of the intersection as a solution to both problems -- had been posted here.

When asked, Acting City Clerk Cynthia Ege insisted, just a few days ago, that she had never seen any proposed "corrective plan" and was unaware if one existed. She denied any knowledge of any such plan whatsoever, even when it was described to her in some specific detail, including reciting that there was a 30 degree angle of radius depicted on the drawing. She only offered to contact the City Engineer, Mr. Clerico and ask whether any such plan existed.

Questioned again thereafter, she confirmed that, after speaking with one of the City's Engineers, Robert J. Clerico, P.E., that there was apparently a preliminary "corrective proposal" drawn up by Mr. Clerico's firm, and that it was being circulated to a few City officials, presumably for their input. But she insisted that her office did not have a copy, in part, as she stated, because it was not "final."

According to Ms. Ege, the officials on a committee evaluating the "corrective plan" included city Director of Public Works, "Paul Cronce and Bruce," meaning [Police Director Bruce Cocuzza]. She again reiterated that she had personally never seen the draft plan, even after being reminded that her office prints out all of Mr Cronce's e-mails and puts them in his mailbox for him. On Friday afternoon (10/29), when he was asked if he was part of a group evaluating the "corrective plan," the Police Director refused to answer, simply saying, "need to know basis," and got in his car and drove away without further response.

Since the Acting City Clerk repeatedly denied ever having seen the "corrective plan" we have also obtained a copy of the e-mail used to circulate that schematic drawing.

The correspondence (embedded below) makes it very clear that the Acting Clerk was indeed sent that memo and attached plan, and that in fact she was a primary addressee on the e-mail. It was sent to her and to others back on September 27, 2010, weeks before she emphatically denied to me that she had ever seen it or received it. (Readers can right "click" on either document & expand by opening in a new tab).

Here it is:

Though the new "corrective plan" itself prepared by Mr. Clerico, posted below, was undated, readers can see that the accompanying e-mail memorandum embedded above forwarded the drawing on September 27, 2010.

Complaints to NJDOT About Safety Concern With Traffic Signal:

I personally filed one of the complaints to NJDOT back on August 30, 2010 by e-mail. It was addressed to several NJDOT officials, focusing on the danger to vehicles and pedestrians emerging from South Franklin Street onto (or crossing) Swan Street. An initial complaint focusing on a pedestrian "blind spot" had also been filed by another Lambertville resident a few days before on August 26, 2010, alleging that the manner in which the currently implemented traffic signal had been designed and thereafter installed had "created a huge pedestrian hazard" and, further recommended that "[t]he intersection needs to be squared off" and recommending that "right turn on red" should be eliminated for vehicles turning off Route 165 onto Swan Street.

In addition, a few fully illustrated and supportive posts about the various aspects of the problem were added here, including the first one on August 27th laying out the history and general parameters of the problem, and a second one was uploaded on August 31st embedding an illustrative "360" interactive Google Earth photo of the intersection. Finally, a third post, was uploaded on September 10, 2010, which reiterated the problem statement, including approximate stopping distances of vehicles traveling on Route 165. It also offered a temporary solution to the problem, in the event funds could not be secured immediately for the quick reconstruction of the intersection in order to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety.

Obviously as a response to those posts, following the regular meeting of the City Council held on September 20, 2010, the Mayor quietly approached me and stated that he had the money in hand to make the correction by reconfiguring the corner at the intersection. He did not specify the source of the money, nor did he say when this would likely be accomplished. Neither did he make any mention of a plan being prepared (or being drawn) to address the problem. Seven days later the preliminary drawing was apparently circulated.

The schematic drawing embodying the "corrective" plan, which according to the Acting Clerk was prepared by Mr. Clerico's office, and which we now know was circulated to City officials over one month ago on September 27th, has still not been submitted to the NJDOT according to the Acting Clerk. That was confirmed confirmed with State officials last week.

Mr. Clerico, it should be noted, was also the City engineer who prepared and submitted the original flawed plan for the City to submit to the NJDOT.

Installation of the Traffic Signal in 2009:

The bid award of $186,986.00 to install the light in accordance with that original flawed plan, was approved by the Mayor and City Council through their vote on Resolution Number 2009-91, in a vote taken on that resolution at a "special meeting" of the City Council held on September 3, 2009. According to the city officials, as memorialized in that Resolution, Edward H. Cray, Inc., Trenton, NJ, was the lowest "responsive" bidder. There were two lower bids, but the City Attorney and Mr. Clerico had reportedly determined that they were not responsive bids. The Mayor, Councilmen Steve Stegman and Councilman Ward Sanders voted in favor of that Resolution. The other Council members were listed as absent from that meeting.

Following the recitation of the wording of the Resolution, the City Council minutes also memorialized the comments of the Mayor thanking the then-Deputy Commissioner of the NJDOT, for praise helping move the original plan's approval through the NJDOT. Though the original plan was rejected by the Department, it was eventually allowed to go forward. But the City had to come up with the money to pay for it.

Well prior to the installation of the traffic signal and crosswalk, safety concerns were pointed out on several occasions to a number of City officials, particularly regarding the problem of the "sweep turn" and the danger it posed to traffic and pedestrians emerging from South Franklin Street, out onto (or across) Swan Street.

The problems were pointed out at least twice to Mayor DelVecchio, on one of those occasions, well prior to the beginning of installation of the traffic signal.

On one later occasion, after construction had begun but before the traffic signal was completed, the Mayor was again told during a meeting at the Union Fire House, and while in the presence of the Director of Public Works and one of the city's engineers, that the design being implemented at the corner, the one featuring the "sweep turn" coming off of Route 165 onto Swan Street, was seriously flawed and presented a serious danger to vehicles and pedestrians, particularly those emerging from South Franklin Street onto, or across Swan Street.

At first acknowledging the validity of the issue, Mayor DelVecchio then turned to the Director of Public Works and asked if the plan could be changed. He said "No" but without offering any explanation. At that point, the Mayor stated that he thought the problem could be solved by eliminating "right turn on red" coming off of Route 165 onto Swan Street. It was pointed out to him that that would absolutely not resolve the problem, if the light was green. But the Mayor offered no indication of any intention to try and correct the problem.

On a much earlier occasion, and prior to the beginning of construction of the traffic signal, the safety flaw was also pointed out to City Council President Steve Stegman during a meeting on traffic calming at which he was substituting for the Mayor. And in very early September of 2009, before construction began on the installation of the traffic signal at the corner of Swan Street and Route 165, the precise problem was pointed out in detail to one of the City Engineers from T&M Associates, and to her assistant, during the course of a walk-through tour to pinpoint details of a "traffic calming" project being developed for South Franklin Street.

When I publicly stated that to the Mayor at a City Council Meeting sometime thereafter, he just responded by blithely saying to me, "You told the wrong Engineer."

+ + + + +

Below is the written response I received from NJDOT officials, after filing the complaint about the pedestrian and vehicle safety problems associated with the installation of the traffic signal at the corner of (state highway) Route 165 and Swan Street.

+ + + + +

* Full disclosure: As readers may be aware, I am a candidate for a one year remainder of a term for a seat on City Council Lambertville, NJ this year.

While this is not a political communication, as might require the posting of a Disclaimer Notice thereon under New Jersey law, I am nevertheless posting this notice. Readers should take note that this communication was entirely prepared by me, and at no cost, other than the time it took to research and piece the story together. I did that myself.

Steve Robbins, Lambertville, New Jersey.

Stopping Distances and the Unsafe Crossing

09/10/2010 -- In a previous post here, we noted the following information with respect to the stopping distances of various kinds of vehicles:

. . .
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.
. . . .

Cars:

This website contains a simple and useful formula for calculating the approximate stopping distances of cars (but not trucks). Obviously, cars differ from one type of vehicle to another depending on a number of factors, including the kind of brakes (e.g. four-wheel disc versus standard), the condition of the brakes, the reaction time of the driver, etc. To calculate the total stopping distances of an average car at the speeds likely to be encountered at the intersection of Route 165 and Swan Street --35, 40 or 45 mph -- just insert the speed in with "x" representing the speed of the vehicle. Here is that simple formula -- x² ÷ 20 + x = stopping distance. It includes the driver reaction time, plus the actual braking distance once the breaks are applied.

If the speed of the vehicle is 35 mph, 35² equals 1,225; divided by 20 equals 61.25; plus 35 equals 96.25 feet.

If the speed of the vehicle is 40 mph, 40² equals 1,600; divided by 20 equals 80; plus 40 equals 120 feet.

If the speed of the vehicle is 45 mph, 45² equals 2,025; divided by 20 equals 101.25; plus 45 equals 146.25 feet.


Trucks:

Recently, in response to a request I had made for information, I also received a call from an official with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), who provided me with additional information to clarify the linked chart regarding truck braking distances.

Though the speed limit in the stretch of Route 165 as it is approaching Swan street is 35 MPH, we all know that many vehicles -- whether cars or trucks --are much more likely to be traveling at 40, or in some cases at 45 MPH. So, based on the information in the chart I've calculated the optimal stopping distances for trucks likely to be encountered on that stretch of the roadway.

The first class of such vehicles would be those identified in the chart as "loaded single unit trucks" which would include trucks like UPS delivery trucks, garbage trucks or perhaps a dump truck.

As can be seen from the chart the manufactured standard for stopping distances for such trucks from the time the brakes are pressed to the time the vehicle comes to a complete stops, are as follows at those three speeds -- 35 mph - 106 feet; 40 mph - 138 feet; and, 45 mph - 175 feet.

We then add on to them the varying distances such trucks would travel before the brakes are engaged -- or, an accepted standard reaction time of operators used by "accident reconstructionists" of 1.5 seconds, before they engaged the brakes.

While that time may be longer than would take many operators to react and hit the brake, experts (such as the one linked above) suggest that more lengthy reaction times occur in situations where, as here, a driver encounters an unexpected surprise -- i.e., a pedestrian suddenly stepping into the roadway.

And the liklihood of that occurring is necessitated because the placement of the bulky relay box has blocked both the vision of the pedestrian (to see what may be coming) and of the driver who, until the pedestrian steps into the crosswalk on the roadway, simply has no idea that there is a pedestrian there!

So the combination represents the distance such trucks could travel before coming to a complete halt. Some drivers might react more quickly, which might reduce the distance a bit, but never likely below 1/3 a second, hence the estimated stopping distances for such trucks in the second chart.

Two Chart Range:
Possible Breaking Distance Ranges for "loaded single unit trucks"

Speed Braking Dist. + Reaction Time 1.5 Sec. = Total Braking Dist.
35 MPH 106 feet + 77.99 feet = 182.99 feet
40 MPH 138 feet + 87.99 feet = 225.99 feet
45 MPH 175 feet + 99.00 feet = 274.00 feet

Speed Braking Dist. + Reaction Time 1/3 Sec. = Total Braking Dist.
35 MPH 106 feet + 17.11 feet = 123.11 feet
40 MPH 138 feet + 19.56 feet = 157.56 feet
45 MPH 175 feet + 22.00 feet = 197.00 feet

Note also that both charts are calculated assuming optimal roadway conditions, such a dry pavement.

Any deviation from optimal conditions, of course, would add to the distance. With wet or icy pavement, the distance might be substantially increased accordingly.

And other circumstances can also effect the reaction time of vehicle operators, such as any distraction that tends to otherwise draw the driver's attention -- turning or passing vehicles, or vehicles otherwise operating at different speeds in adjacent lanes, checking rear-view or side mirrors, distractions such as talking on cell phones, eating or drinking beverages, conversing with passengers, and, of course, driving while fatigued, or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Since a reasonable estimate cannot automatically assume the best of all circumstances, the range between the two sets of distances probably represents the total stopping distances for the vast majority of such vehicles at that intersection, without taking into account those additional factors (poor weather, distractions, fatigue, etc.).

Clearly then, leaving that traffic light as currently configured, is an unnecessary invitation to a tragic outcome. We have already had a few pedestrian accidents involving those crossing Rt. 165 in the recent past.

Even a modest correction, such as the temporary one we have suggested above through the installation of a line of clearly visible ground mounted vertical delineators to "square off" the corner, would 1) of necessity reduce the speed of turning vehicles, 2) allow pedestrians to get a look to see what is coming up Rt. 165, 3) actually shorten the "on road" distance pedestrians travel in crossing Route 165, and 4) give both vehicles and pedestrians emerging from South Franklin Street on to Swan Street, greater visibility and reaction time to avoid impacts with such turning vehicles.

Here is a "overview" sketch drawn on a Google Earth photo of that intersection, and a visible view of how that would work to improve safety in those four ways..

The original overview is courtesy of ling time Lambertville resident and traffic design expert, Gary Toth.

The green line sketch suggesting where the ground-mounted verticle delineators could be installed was added by me. If you "click" on the overview photo, it will expand to a readily viewable size.

UPCOMING RESPONSE: The NJDOT responds!

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

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.