More On The Faulty Traffic Signal

08/31/2010 -- The following Google Earth "360 photo" illustrates the sweeping nature of the turn at the corner of Swan Street and Route 165, at the bottom of our hill.

Once the photo comes up into focus, you can use the directional wheel (located at the top left), to view the entire intersection -- all 360 degrees!

If you click the left arrow on that wheel just once, you will get a very good view of the entire southeast corner of the intersection, taken from the middle of the street, out on Route 165. Hit it a second time and that angle -- looking straight up Swan Street -- illustrates how the viewpoint of both drivers and pedestrians who are emerging from South Franklin Street, simply do not have a clear line of sight of northbound traffic that may be turning off of Route 165 onto Swan Street, until it is dangerously close to them. Many residents on the street, and others who use this route, have complained that they must inch well out onto Swan Street, before getting enough visibility of the corner to feel safe enough to proceed.

It is dangerous! This problem was not taken into account when the light was designed, even though numerous City officials were informed of it. Take a look.


View Larger Map

You may have also noticed that this "360 photo" was taken before the installation of the new traffic signal.

The last post here outlined two problems . . . one was this lack of a clear line of sight while emerging from South Franklin. The second problem was made plain by this photo:

Anyone pedestrian operating the traffic signal down on Route 165 on that corner cannot see down Route 165, and is currently compelled to step into the roadway of Route 165 in order to see. If a vehicle is coming up 165, and especially if it has a green light and is turning onto Swan Street, the extreme danger to pedestrians is obvious.

But just pointing out problems is not constructive, unless one is also willing to offer a reasonable solution.

So, what we are now proposing as at least a temporary solution to both of these problems, would be for officials to "square off" the intersection, perhaps by installing a line of highly visible and ground-mounted vertical delineators, or similar devices that are actually attached to the roadway, in order to gently lead traffic turning right onto Swan Street, and into a more squared-off pattern instead of being able to tightly sweep the corner.

While these devices are very visible, if they are bumped or brushed by a vehicle, they fold over and do not do damage to the vehicle.

Such a temporary solution would be very inexpensive, and it could safely serve to resolve the problems until adequate funding for a more permanent solution (reconfiguring the corner) can be implemented. Considering the extraordinary length of time it took the City to implement this traffic light "solution" having a temporary solution in place could reduce the risks involved and possibly save lives.

Here are the four basic beneficial effects from the solution I am offering as a suggestion:

a.) it would slow down the northbound traffic on Route 165 making any right turn onto Swan Street; b.) it would bring that traffic a little further north, so that both pedestrians and vehicles emerging from South Franklin Street would actually be able to safely see those vehicles making the turn onto Swan Street; c.) it would allow pedestrians waiting for the light to turn to get a safe look down Route 165 before stepping into the roadway; and d.) it would actually shorten the distance pedestrians need to travel while walking across Route 165.

Problems With New Traffic Signal

08/27/2010 -- There are two apparent, and I believe significant design problems with the new traffic light that has been installed at the corner of Swan Street and Route 165 in Lambertville, which design flaws have resulted in unnecessary safety hazards affecting both pedestrians and drivers of motor vehicles.

One of those two problems -- the failure to "square off" the corner of Route 165, has caused a serious blind spot affecting drivers and pedestrians emerging from South Franklin Street out onto Swan Street. That flaw was specifically drawn to the attention of the Mayor and other City officials on a number of occasions, both before and after the installation of the traffic light.

The design defect was also specifically pointed out to one of the City engineers, Christine Ballard, during a "walk around" tour of South Franklin Street she conducted with a few residents, back before the final approval of the traffic calming project for South Franklin. I do not know whether she passed on that information to the Mayor, or to the other City engineer, who may have drawn the design for the traffic light.

And, I also specifically drew this problem to the attention of Council President Steve Stegman at one of the several meetings with residents on the traffic calming proposal. He chaired that meeting when the Mayor was unavailable to make it.

So, what I do know is that the City went ahead with the installation of this traffic light, and they ignored this serious design problem despite the fact that it had been specifically brought to the attention of several city officials.

The following two photos illustrate this first problem. The first one shows the actual line of sight of a driver if he or she is properly stopped at the stop sign at the bottom of South Franklin, and presuming that the front of his or her vehicle is bordering on the edge of the crosswalk. Such a driver could not see an oncoming driver, even if the vehicle was beginning up the ramp onto Swan Street.

The second photo illustrates where a vehicle has to be out onto Swan Street in order for the operator to be able to get a line of sight of possible oncoming vehicles making the turn onto swan Street. Any such driver must at the same time be attentive to possible vehicles proceeding down Swan Street as well. Note the location of the "crosswalk line" which would now be at the back of the vehicle! A driver would have to be nearly completely out onto Swan Street before he or she has a suitable line of sight of potential oncoming traffic coming off of Route 165.

Anyone driving a vehicle and entering onto Swan Street from South Franklin, has to actually drive out into the street in order to be able to observe whether any vehicles are turning right at that intersection. A driver traveling northbound on Route 165, who has a green light can currently "sweep around" that corner onto Swan Street, and may risk a crash with any vehicle coming out of South Franklin, especially one that has inched well out into the roadway in order to see if anyone is coming off 165.

The design for the installation of the traffic light should have included squaring off the corner so that vehicles making that right turn would be required to slow down and proceed closer to the actual intersection before making that right-hand turn. That would have made such vehicles more visible to drivers of vehicles coming out of South Franklin Street.

That is a dangerous flaw in the design and it should have never been approved that way by the City.

The second obvious design flaw is that the pedestrian signal button was installed on a post located behind a large black relay box that was also placed there at the time of the installation of the light. The installation resulted in another blind spot.

As is obvious from the photo, any pedestrian who is operating the traffic signal button on the Cottage Hill side of the street, simply cannot be seen at all by northbound drivers traveling on Route 165, and conversely, a pedestrian operating the signal cannot see any oncoming traffic because of the location of the signal box.

In fact, as the following photo illustrates, a pedestrian must literally step out into the highway to be able to see, or be seen by any oncoming traffic. The operator of any vehicle with a green light who wishes to make the right hand turn onto Swan Street, can currently "sweep" around very close to that corner because of the dangerous design. It would be very difficult or even impossible to stop in time if a pedestrian suddenly stepped onto the roadway to see if a car or other vehicle was oncoming.

Likewise, a vehicle with a green light who is proceeding through the intersection may well be traveling in the right-hand lane, and close to the curb.

The speed limit on Route 165 at that precise location is 35 miles per hour, but it is common knowledge throughout the community that drivers frequently exceed that speed.

Even under the best of roadway conditions (dry pavement, full daylight) and with good brakes, and good reaction time on the part of the driver, an average car traveling at 35 mph needs approximately 100 feet to come to a stop.

This federal standards chart, which became effective just at the end of April, 2010, is the most recent federal standard for braking distance requirements for three axle trucks, which comprise the vast majority of the truck fleet on the highway today. Therefore, it is the federal standard for stopping distances in feet that relate to the typical three-axle trucks one would likely encounter on the roadway today. PFC stands for "peak friction coefficient" and the stopping distances indicated are from the actual application of the brakes until the vehicle comes to a complete stop. They do not include the reaction time of the driver.

Thus, in the best of dry road conditions, a truck traveling at the allowed speed limit of 35 mph, would need a minimum of just under 100 feet to come to a stop once the brakes are applied. One traveling at 40 mph, would need a minimum of 125 feet to come to a stop once the brakes are applied.

As can be seen from this photo, any pedestrian in that blind spot, who therefore could not be seen by any driver coming up Route 165, and who stepped out into the roadway in order to be able to see if there was any oncoming traffic, would simply not have a chance if a vehicle traveling in the right lane was close to the intersection, regardless of whether any such oncoming vehicle was a truck or a car!


Therefore, it is my opinion that this traffic signal, as currently configured, is literally a pedestrian fatality just waiting to happen. The City should take immediate action to correct this problem. In fact, they never should have approved it with these design flaws in the first place.

Snow Removal Issues – South Franklin Street

08-23-2010 -- The following is a first draft outlining recommended snow removal issues as relate to South Franklin Street in Lambertville, NJ, which was respectfully submitted to the Mayor’s Volunteer Snow Removal Committee at the first public meeting of the committee, held on August 23, 2010, at the Lambertville Justice Complex, 25 South Union Street, Lambertville, NJ 08530, beginning at 7:00 PM.

SCOPE OF PROBLEM

South Franklin Street, located on the western edge of Cottage Hill, is one of the first areas within the City to be salted by City trucks. It is also one of the first areas of the City to be plowed. The apparent reason is that South Franklin Street is one of only two streets providing access to the Woodcrest Condominium complex, and to other populated developments that are located on Cottage Hill.

At the top of South Franklin, plows and salt trucks can turn left onto Highland Avenue in order to access the other areas of the hill. The only other primary means of access to that area, is by way of Swan Street, and then Studdiford Street, which eventually becomes Goat Hill Road. Both ways have steep slopes, and each is vulnerable to the potential for being blocked by accidents, fallen trees, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Thus, our street is an important means of access to the upper reaches of the hill, and a key means of access throughout Cottage Hill. It is imperative to keep it open to traffic during storms, both for the convenience of residents, and also for the potential needs of circumstances requiring the dispatching emergency vehicles.

Distinct Areas Along South Franklin Street

For the purposes of snow removal, the paved portion of South Franklin Street can be seen as being comprised of three distinct areas. There is another area along the "dirt road" section of the roadway that has not been addressed in this first draft. It will be address in a future draft.

The Upper Area – Running from the turn onto Highland Avenue, down to the entrance of St John’s Cemetery, the upper area is relatively flat by comparison with the rest of the street. Parking is only permitted on the "western" or river side of the street. This fact is critical to an understanding of the impact of snow removal. Clearly, snow removal is easier in that area because the trucks are not impeded by parked vehicles on the "uphill" side of the street. A construction plan currently being executed for traffic calming on that portion of the street, calls for the inclusion of two "speed cushions" to reduce the incidence of speeding in that area. Because they are cushions, and not true 'speed humps"” the presence of these this should not in any way impede the snow removal process.

The Middle area – This section, which runs sharply down hill from the one-way entrance to St. Johns Cemetery roadway down to the upper entrance of the Mt. Hope Cemetery, allows for parking on the "up-hill" side of the roadway, as well as on the "river" side. However, there are only three homes along this section, and only infrequently are vehicles parked on the opposite side. Therefore, there is no real problem in clearing the snow from the street in that section, and there is a stretch where plowed snow could easily be pushed to the side along the Mt. Hope side to easily avoid interference with vehicles parked in the driveways along the "river side." Two bump-outs being constructed a a part of the "traffic calming" plan will likewise not impede snow removal.

The Lower Area – This stretch of the roadway, from the upper entrance to the Mt. Hope Cemetery down to the perpendicular intersection with Swan Street, is the most problematic with respect to snow removal. For one reason, there are a significant number of town house properties located along that stretch, which simply means that there are more vehicles likely to be parked along the roadway than on any other section.

Secondly, parking is permitted on both sides of the street throughout most of that stretch, and therefore the operation of the snow plows, during any significant snowfall, is much likely to result in vehicles being "plowed in," even vehicles that have been previously dug out by their owners.

There is a need for some level of coordination between the dispatchers of the plow operators and the residential vehicle owners to avoid repetition of this cycle of frustration. It involves a considerable amount of extra physical exertion by the residents, and is sometimes complicated further by freezing and icing of the plowed snow.

One of the consequences is that residents will then dig their vehicles out and throw the snow back into the street, potentially creating a secondary hazard. These complications need to be reduced.

The problem could possibly be addressed in a few ways. One would be for Public Works to plan for the quick removal of the plowed snow. A second would be to identify a designated location to plow the snow to, pending its ultimate removal by truck, or melting if that is unfeasible. Another would be to consider plowing away from the parked vehicles, and collecting or "storing" the snow in an area that does not block residential parking, such as in the entrance to the lower Mt. Hope drive, or along the stretch of open roadway area on the river side of the roadway, between the upper entrance to Mt. Hope and the first house. However, this would require discussion and agreement with the cemetery official, and/or the property owners involved.

# # # # #

Please understand that this first draft was intended as a preliminary look at the problem, NOT as a plan.

Hopefully it will form the basis for developing a more complete plan.

I held discussions with a few residents along the roadway in order to formulate this first draft, but input by the residents is important to consideration of all potential issues involved. So, please feel free to comment.

Before putting together the first draft, I asked the Mayor and Clerk if there was any particular format for composing this document and they said there was none they were aware of. Any suggestions in that regard will be welcome as well.

I am posting it here on the website of the http://southfranklinstreetproject.blogspot.com/ in order to actively solicit more helpful input. If you have any observations or comments you would like to add regarding snow removal, please feel free to comment on this post.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Robbins
65 D South Franklin Street, ssrobbinslville@aol.com

Meeting Background - October,6 2009

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

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

What preliminary plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as also noted in the earlier study:

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

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

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


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

Letter to the Mayor - Traffic Claming Measures

September 12, 2009


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


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


Dave:


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


Paul Gorecki
87 S. Franklin St.


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

Reminder . . . tonight's meeting

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

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

Council Approves Resolution to Enforce One-Way

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

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

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


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