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.

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.

Local Speed Humps & Traffic Calming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Upcoming:)

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

Website Announcement to Residents

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

Fellow South Franklin Street Resident,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cordially,

Steve Robbins
65D South Franklin