Meeting Background - October,6 2009

As most residents of South Franklin Street are aware from correspondence dated September 23, 2009, sent by Mayor DelVecchio, yet another meeting on "traffic calming" with residents has been scheduled for tomorrow evening, Tuesday, October 6, 2009.

The Mayor's letter further states that the 6 pm meeting at the Justice Center at 25 South Union Street, has been scheduled "to further discuss the preliminary plan" for traffic calming on our hill.

What preliminary plan?

From the start of this project, Paul, Eleanor and I have tried to make it clear to the Mayor and to the Engineer, that we were volunteering to be involved as stakeholders in the process of developing that plan. Unfortunately, the silence has been consistent, and the requested communication has been virtually non-existent. Meetings, such as tomorrow evening's, are now even being scheduled without any consultation regarding schedules, which we would have been more than happy to help coordinate, if asked. Paul Gorecki's Open Letter to the Mayor dated September 12, 2009, and posted below, makes it very clear, citing specifics, that there has been little or no effective communication throughout this process.

But we took the lead in carefully analyzing the various safety factors involved, we prepared and presented a detailed photographic presentation highlighting those specific problems, and made some basic suggestions for consideration by all. And, most importantly, all of that information was posted on this website for anyone to consult, review or comment on.

The last meeting, the one held on September 10th, was billed as for the planned unveiling of a preliminary plan. No such plan was offered, and much of the time was instead spent rehashing information, some of which had seemed settled as of last summer.

At the beginning of the meeting, during an introductory attempt to "set the stage" for where we currently stood, imprecise information regarding signage was supplied by both the Public Works Director (re: the Woodcrest emergency access roadway), and as well by the Engineer (re; the posted speed signage on the roadway). Even a cursory review of the photographic evidence herein would have obviated such errors. And the erroneous belief by the engineer that speed limits were not posted could have easily contributed to wasted time and effort in analyzing the scope of the problem.

All anyone had to do was to review the basic posts here.

We were treated to an informative slide show, and a general discussion of potential traffic calming measures and steps ensued. During the course of the meeting, a factional notion was offered, suggesting that "all we need to do is lower the speed limit to 15 mph" and the problem will somehow all be solved.

Two of the strongest proponents of that notion reside on the upper dirt road portion of the street, where speeding is really not a pervasive issue. But speaking anecdotally, speeding apparently IS a "micro-issue" up there, and certainly deserves to be addressed. So, perhaps that would be a good solution for that portion of the roadway. If that is what they want, I'm sure all of us would be supportive of such a request.

However, the inherent difficulties involved in posting a 15 mph speed limit on the macadam portions of the roadway become apparent, if given even a little thought.

First, the speed limit of 25 mph on South Franklin Street is clearly posted, and in both directions. Yet, we currently have a speeding problem with some vehicles. Many of us have observed the patterns, and have no doubt that a number of speeders drive up and down the hill, sometimes at more than double the posted speed.

If some speeders are willing to drive at speeds of 50, or even occasionally at 60 mph, when the speed limit is posted at 25 mph, what possible effect would lowering the speed limit to 15 mph have on them?

I would suggest "none" when it comes to the problem speeders.

One portion of the meeting that was very beneficial was when Sgt. Brown of the Lambertville Police Department showed up and described some of the difficulties of actual enforcement, including the specific requirements involved in setting up a radar unit on the roadway. He also addressed the fact that there was an attempt to enforce at one point several months back, which required their black and white vehicle to be wet up at a point where it was easily visible.

Secondly, the City cannot be expected to supply enforcement resources in locations where traffic is not comparatively heavy, such as up here on South Franklin Street. That is why we have instead urged the implementation of certain in-place traffic calming measures to slow the dangerous speeder traffic on the hill.

So, without the possibility for any concentrated or even meaningful enforcement, coupled with a lowering of the speed limit to 15, what would the effect likely be, in the absence of installing traffic calming measures?

A small percentage of people who strictly obey speed limits would lower their speed from 25 down to 15, the bulk of the drivers would continue to drive at what speed they consider "reasonable" for the conditions, and the speeders would continue along their merry way, continuing to endanger the small children on the upper portion of the road, as well as the numerous pedestrians, as well as pet owners throughout.

What do I base this on? A considerable number of traffic speed studies, conducted by and for the United States Department of Transportation over the years bear out that pattern.

For example, many years ago a study was prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entitled, "Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits" which noted in the summary that:

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered.

In other words, posting lower speed limits by itself does not decrease motorists' speeds. But what will lower or moderate speeds are traffic calming measures, including speed humps or tables, and many of the other measures the engineers showed us pictures of at the last meeting.

Residents will recall that the Mayor himself told us at one of our earlier meetings that the effect of placing speed humps on South Union Street, which he supported as a resident of that neighborhood at the time, was very positive. And he further said that it was the one area in the City where he had stopped receiving complaints about speeding. We have reported on this site the statements of residents on Ferry Street about the benefits of the "speed cushions" that have been employed there.

Another significant factor to consider is that it should be the goal of whatever measures are implemented to moderate traffic flow so that there will be a rational speed limit, one that most people will see as appropriate, and one that is safe.

Reducing the speed limit down to 15 mph could actually have a net negative effect.

A 2006 study sponsored by ASHTO* and others, entitled "EXPERT SYSTEM FOR RECOMMENDING SPEED LIMITS IN SPEED ZONES: FINAL REPORT" made the point very precisely.

Artificially low speed limits can lead to poor compliance as well as large variations in speed within the traffic stream. Increased speed variance can also create more conflicts and passing maneuvers that can lead to more crashes.

And as also noted in the earlier study:

Arbitrary, unrealistic and nonuniform speed limits have created a socially acceptable disregard for speed limits. Unrealistic limits increase accident risks for persons who attempt to comply with limit by driving slower or faster than the majority of road users. Unreasonably low limits significantly decrease driver compliance and give road users such as person not familiar with the road and pedestrians, a false indication of actual traffic speeds.

But implementation of traffic calming measures will tend to control the speeders on the roadway, making it more safe for everyone.

Finally, at the last meeting we were given information regarding roadway grades that, seemed clearly at variance with reality, at least with regards the upper part of the roadway. We have asked for specific data from the engineer, and none has been forthcoming. South Franklin Street above the entrance to the St. Johns Cemetery roadway, running up to where it intersects with Highland Avenue, is part of what we have asked about. But why this persistent lack of communication has occurred is simply beyond us. All we want is to be sure the grant is put to the most efficient and beneficial use for the residents, in implementing a project that will impact our quality of life and safety.


* The work states that it was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies.

Letter to the Mayor - Traffic Claming Measures

September 12, 2009


City of Lambertville
c/o Dave DelVecchio
18 York St.
Lambertville, NJ 08530


RE: S. Franklin St. - Traffic Calming Measures
Meeting September 10, 2009


Dave:


The purpose of this correspondence is to express my dismay regarding the content provided by the City Engineer at the referenced meeting. Your August 24, 2009 letter stated that the City Engineer was completing preliminary plans for traffic calming measures on our street. To the contrary, the City Engineer proposed no such plans at the meeting. Instead, she and her colleague presented slides demonstrating various traffic calming measures. I appreciated the open forum and exchange of ideas, but for many of us residents present at the meeting this was quite trivial.


Please remember, the residents of S. Franklin St are the catalyst behind the current traffic calming efforts. We were successful in addressing our objectives related to the St. John cemetery pass through and concurrently focused our efforts toward traffic calming measures on our street. In March and April of this year we already brought DOT Regulations and the corresponding ITE Guidance to your attention. Shortly thereafter we worked with the City to obtain a funding source in the form of the DRJTBC in preparation for the assessment/implementation of traffic calming measures on our street.


Two days after your July 8, 2009 correspondence, we called to request "early buy-in" in the development of preliminary plans alongside the City Engineer for traffic calming measures on our street. At that point, it was clearly conveyed that we wanted preliminary plans for traffic calming measures in succession to address concerns at the top, middle and bottom of our street.
Since no plans were unveiled at the meeting, contrary to our wishes, please take note of the following:

• the consensus amongst the residents is that a speed table is the most appropriate measure at the top of the hill, north of Highland Ave. There appears to be a 450 foot run, from 93 S. Franklin St. to 115 S. Franklin St in which the grade is less than 8 percent, the recommended ceiling for speed humps in the ITE Guidance, not speed tables . The speed table is longer and lower in height than a speed hump and in most instances runs the entire width of the street. It will serve as an excellent means to calm traffic in that portion of our street. That portion is of particular concern because it is the area which houses the majority of the children living on the street.
  

• concerning the middle portion of our street, particularly between 69 S. Franklin St and 85 S. Franklin St, one bump-out on the either side, preferably the east side, of the street with appropriate signs and markings should suffice. Even though the grade is at a greater percent than at the top of the street, the bump-out will certainly serve as an adequate calming device for drivers to reduce their speed in that portion of the street.
  

The area in which we are asking for the City Engineer’s expertise is at the bottom of our street, south of the intersection at S. Franklin St and Swan St. Given that the driving area of the road narrows due to parking on the west side of the street and the grade in that area of the street is the steepest, we are anticipating the City Engineer’s plans for our concerns in that location.


Therefore, I would personally appreciate if you could please stop speed and traffic source surveys and ensure that the allotted grant money is spent on preparing the bid and, in turn, implementing the traffic calming measures at the top and middle of the street. Furthermore, can you also convey to the City Engineer that she should include what we, the residents, want in the recommendation. Our recommendations are not without reason and purpose. Finally, are you able to ensure that the City Engineer brings substance to the October 6, 2009 meeting, by proposing traffic calming measures at the bottom of our street?


There is no reason why the allotted grant money should be consumed on additional surveys and/or presentations conveying what we as residents already know about traffic concerns on our street.


In addition, please provide the following information, addressed to Steve Robbins at 65-D, S. Franklin St., on or prior to Friday, October 2, 2009:

• total engineering costs charged to our project as of the September 10th meeting
  
• results from the engineering survey depicting the elevations every 100 feet along S. Franklin St (i.e., Swan St to Highland Ave.)
  

Finally, kindly provide Steve or myself two days advance notice of the next time the City Engineer and her surveying crew plans to be present to evaluate traffic calming measures at the bottom of our street.


Paul Gorecki
87 S. Franklin St.


PS: Your August 24, 2009 correspondence directed resident concerns via telephone and/or email through the City Clerk to Paul Cronce, Public Works Director. There does not appear to be a direct way to reach Paul via email. Is it possible to get Paul his own email address?

Reminder . . . tonight's meeting

Per a letter from Mayor DelVecchio which you should have received, dated August 24, 2009, a meeting will be held this evening in the Justice Complex at 25 South Union Street, at 6:00 pm, "to further discuss the preliminary plan" for the South Franklin Street traffic calming project.

We had asked that the City engineer include us in during the development of the plan as primary stakeholders in the project, but unfortunately, this will be the first contact we have had, other than the letter announcing the meeting.

Council Approves Resolution to Enforce One-Way

On Monday evening, April 20, 2009, the Lambertville City Council unanimously approved a resolution providing for police enforcement of the "One-Way" designation of the private roadway running between the two cemeteries -- St. John's and Mt. Hope -- between South Franklin Street and Boozer Street. The roadway is a private drive owned by St. John's. The police will now be able to enforce for the Title 39 violation. The Church had requested the City enforce the One-Way designation, per a letter sent to the City back in early April.

Under New Jersey law, provided for at N.J.S.A. 39:4–85.1, operation of a vehicle the wrong way on a one-way street, according to the Judiciary's schedule -- the Statewide Violations Bureau Schedules Traffic Ticket Payment Amounts, the recommended payable amount is $85.00, and is a 2 point offense.

In addition, a few more signs were posted as reminders for drivers at key locations along the roadway.


(You can click on any photo to enlarge it.)

Good Friday, Good News

Our neighbors from Woodcrest at Lambertville have received the following notice from their Homeowner's Association. Please click on each of the images of the pages for ease of reading.

The notice certainly speaks for itself, and we should all certainly extend our sincere appreciation for the thoughtful manner in which the Association approached the problem we have had with speeding and other unsafe driving on our roadway, and we thank them for their prompt and thorough attention to this matter.

In addition, Mayor David DelVecchio took the time to update me on the funding issues related to the traffic calming measures being planned for South Franklin Street. He briefly pulled me aside last evening at the hearing that he had called for to address public concerns regarding the Lambertville Sewerage Authority (which has now become the Lambertville Utilities Authority).

We had been previously notified in an informal way that the funding request previously filed with the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission would likely be approved, but that the City would need to file their requests individually, not jointly as had been previously done. According to the Mayor, that new individual request has now been submitted. That too is good news and we certainly appreciate the prompt attention the Mayor has paid to the matter.

Following our meeting* with the Mayor on the 19th of March, several matters still remained up in the air, including the final status of the one-way designation for the roadway through St. John's cemetery. After finding out that the Public Works Director had not spoken to St. Johns Church officials about granting the City permission to enforce the appropriate provisions of Title 39 on the Church-owned roadway, and requesting the enforcement of the One-Way designation for the roadway at the south end of the cemetery, Paul Gorecki and I stopped by to speak with them.

Tracy Muscatell graciously offered to speak to Father Kolakowski about forwarding a letter to that effect to the City. As a consequence, we have since been been informed by her that Father Kolakowski sent the following letter to the City of Lambertville.

April 7, 2009



City of Lambertville
18 York
Street
Lambertville, NJ 08530

Dear Mayor DelVecchio and
Committee Members:

This letter is to ask permission and to request that the City of Lambertville enforce and patrol the private road that connects South Franklin Street with Boozer Street through our cemetery.

We have put up the necessary signs letting people know that the road is now one way. We hope that with the City of Lambertville’s help this continued problem will now be solved.

We appreciate your help with this matter. We hope to continue to work with the community to help others in anyway we can.

Sincerely yours in Christ,



Rev.
Robert Kolakowski
Administrator

It now appears that all aspects of our agenda are now moving successfully forward.

Happy Holidays everyone!


* At that meeting on March 19th, we supplied the City with copies of the pertinent portions of the official "Final Subdivision Plat of Section I Woodcrest At Lambertville," certified by the Lambertville City Clerk on December 19, 1988, and filed with the Hunterdon County Clerk on 12/20/1988, as Map No. 984, as well as a copies of the pertinent portions of the official "Final Subdivision Plat of Section II Woodcrest At Lambertville," certified by the Lambertville City Clerk on 5/30/90, and filed with the Hunterdon County Clerk on 6/18/1990, as Map No. 1048. Each one clearly memorializes the precise location of the centerline of the 12 foot wide arc that is specifically designated as an emergency access easement. The latter (6/18/90) map specifies both the square footage and acreage. The emergency access easement clearly overlays the narrow roadway at Woodcrest running onto Highland Avenue at the head of Boozer Street, emerging from Liberty View Court. That roadway is currently marked with the road sign, "Emergency Vehicle Access Only."

NOTICE: Change of Meeting Location

The Lambertville City Clerk, Lori Buckelew, has informed us that the meeting of South Franklin Street residents with the Mayor this evening, March 19, 2009, at 7:00 pm will be held at City Hall, at 18 York Street, Lambertville, instead of at the Justice Center as originally planned.

The Lambertville Municipal Court will be in session at the Justice Center this afternoon and this evening, thus creating a space conflict. At the time that our meeting was scheduled back on February 25th, the Lambertville Municipal Court was still operating out at the West Amwell facility, so the conflict could not have been readily anticipated. I believe this is their first session back in town.

A notice of the change of location will be posted at the Justice Center alerting anyone who did not receive my e-mail, or see this notice.

Thanks. See you at City Hall at 7:00 pm.

One-Way Sign and An Invitation

It's been up for a few days, and is a little tough to read, but it says "One Way Do Not Enter."

One funny quip heard through the grapevine was that if someone goes out to water it every day it will eventually grow up to be a full sign.

Police Director, Bruce Cocuzza, was out our way yesterday afternoon -- apparently to inspect the "new" sign -- and he pulled over on Boozer Street for a minute or two to chat, as I was on my way to take this photo. Among other things, he volunteered that there are apparently some who are now objecting to the designation of the roadway as "One-Way." He did not say who they were, or how many, or exactly what their objections were. But his tone seemed to me to contrast with his positive expressions about the topic during our meeting with the Mayor back on the 25th of February.

In advocating for the designation of the roadway as "One-Way" we have described, as well as illustrated through photographs, what we believe are the inherent dangers involved on the South Franklin Street side, including the steepness of the down ramp, and the blind spot arising out of the adjacent landscaping.

In spite of initial misgivings expressed at the Council meeting in January, the Mayor enthusiastically supported the idea of the One-Way designation at his meeting with the South Franklin Street residents on February 25th. As everyone present at that meeting will recall, he brought it up! And he volunteered to have City officials go and ask St. Johns Church to permit it to be made "One-Way." We confirmed their support for the idea in a subsequent conversation I had with Rev. Kolakowski of St. Johns.

We certainly hope the Mayor's views have not changed.

In making the case for that designation as a portion of traffic calming measures to help rectify a speeding and unsafe driving problem over here on South Franklin Street, we have pointed to the recent crash that occurred there as a result of a car being driven by a Cottage Hill resident losing control while driving down that ramp. That crash resulted in the totaling a vehicle parked in the owner's driveway over here on the South Franklin Street side. Had the totaled vehicle not been parked in that driveway, by the way, it is very likely that the driver would have crashed his car right into a home. There have been a few other incidents of vehicles spinning out while coming down that ramp.

We therefore think the obvious risks involved outweigh the apparent convenience of a few being free to cut through on their way down to the highway, or to town.

We also believe we made the case for the One-Way designation in a frank, open and responsible manner. The idea of closing off one end was impractical, and finally yielded to common sense. To date, no one has expressed or argued a contrary view here, with the sole exception of a brief note, without further explanation, from the City's engineer about the posting of "No Outlet" signs.

So we are openly extending an invitation to anyone, including the Police Director, or the Mayor, or anyone else, to post their comments and views here.

In fact, anyone should also feel free to attend our scheduled update discuss with the Mayor tonight, March 19th, at the Justice Center, which will start at 7:00 pm.