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.

A Mulligan . . . and Some Good News

There are many, many jokes that recite the old bromide, "first the good news, then the bads news."

The following comment posted here on our website, however, seemed to get that exactly backwards -- "First the bad news . . ." and there was indeed some good news, but first we need to tie down some loose ends.

Christine Ballard, P.E., the City's consulting engineer, posted this comment earlier today.

cballard said...

The City of Lambertville Reports: St. Johns will be installing signs identifying "No Outlet" to prevent thru traffic on the cemetary roadway. Also, the Woodcrest HomeOwner's Association will be meeting to discuss installation of a chain to prevent traffic from entering & exiting on the emergency access road to Highland Ave. It is likely a chain will be installed. 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.

For those who were in attendance at the meeting on the evening of February 25th in the Justice Building on South Union Street, you will no doubt recall the Mayor specifically committing to everyone there that he would request St. Johns Church post the cemetery roadway "One-Way," from South Franklin Street to Boozer Street, not "No Outlet."

You may also recall the general agreement, including comments by the Police Director discussing the posting of the "One-Way" signs for enforcement purposes.

You may also recall Paul Gorecki asking the Mayor the very pertinent question, "Why the change of heart?" given the City's previous opposition to a "One-Way" designation at the January Regular Council meeting.

After the meeting on the 25th, and because of our desire to follow up on the matters discussed, I personally stopped by St. Johns Church and spoke to Rev. Kolakowski that Friday, February 27th. He confirmed to me that in an earlier conversation that day with Paul Cronce, he had committed to making the roadway "One-Way."

That discussion was reported here twice, first by Paul Gorecki, and then again by me.

It was also posted in the comments appended to an article dated February 25th on the subject, in the Lambertville Beacon (subscribers only for older articles).

LAMBERTVILLE: South Franklin residents seek solution for speeding
LAMBERTVILLE -- Concerned about speeders, South Franklin Street residents planned to meet Wednesday (Feb. 25) with city officials and an engineer at the Justice Center to brainstorm a deterrent.

In fact, at the instruction of the Mayor during our meeting on the 25th, Paul Cronce had gone there earlier on Friday and the Church had committed to making the roadway "One-Way."

At no time was there ever any discussion of resolving the safety issue by posting or requesting the posting of "No Outlet" signs.

Such a posting would unfortunately serve no useful purpose. It would be largely (if not completely) unenforceable, and would therefore be utterly ignored. As proof, one need only consider the history of non-compliance with the "Emergency Vehicle Access Only" sign up at Woodcrest.

Earlier this evening, following a written exchange with Christine Ballard, and then on the phone with the Mayor, a commitment was made to me by them to follow up on this particular matter. As I recall, the Mayor referenced it as "a Mulligan."

As for the remainder of Christine's comment, it certainly sounds like good news, but as Paul Gorecki astutely observed in a prior post here,

"Even though an initial plan of action was conveyed at this week’s meeting by the Mayor, it will be necessary that we, as residents, continue to monitor its progress."

Well said.