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.

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

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."

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.

Speeding: An Issue on South Franklin St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We believe these are the four primary safety risks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


View Larger Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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