City Approved Design For Traffic Signal

Monday, 09/19/2011, 9 pm -- At their regular meeting for the month of September earlier this evening, the Lambertville City Council finally approved a long-awaited design plan for the improvement of the intersection with the traffic light at Route 165 and Swan Street.

Once implemented, the new plan will likely result in the significant improvement of safety at that intersection for both vehicular traffic, and for pedestrians as well.

The original site plan, pursuant to which the traffic light was installed at the intersection, was originally approved by NJDOT back in mid-2009. Though City officials had been informed of a basic flaw in the design, and had reportedly had discussions regarding the flaw, they nevertheless failed to submit an amendment to the proposal they had sent to NJDOT seeking approval for the original installation of the traffic light.

That original design plan did not provide for the "squaring off" of the southeast corner of the intersection, as had been specifically recommended to the Mayor and other City officials on a few occasions. The failure to include that element in the original plan, or to amend the original proposal, resulted in the maintenance of a "blind spot" for vehicles and pedestrians, especially for those emerging from South Franklin Street, whether the vehicles were turning left onto Swan Street or going straight across the Swan Creek Bridge on South Franklin in the direction of the intersection of 165/518 & Quarry St., known locally as "the hook."

The implemented design was especially dangerous for pedestrians crossing Swan Street at South Franklin. Drivers and pedestrians were forced to literally drive or walk out onto Swan street to get a view of whether quickly moving traffic was coming off of Route 165 and turning onto Swan.

The State-approved amendment to the original plan, which had been recently received by the City and which was ratified at tonight's meeting, will result in a more "squared off" corner at the corner of Route 165 and Swan. Implementation of that plan will improve the safety of that intersection for both vehicular traffic and for pedestrians by slowing down, or "calming" traffic turning onto Swan Street, thereby improving both the visibility and the reaction time of vehicular and pedestrian traffic emerging from South Franklin Street.

The New Jersey State Department of Transportation had received numerous complaints about the original implemented design, and officials there had appointed a task force of various stakeholders within the Department to evaluate the complaints, and the correction proposed by the City was eventually approved by NJDOT.

Our original post herein about the major safety problems was dated over a year ago in August 2010. The second design flaw involved the location of the signal device, which created a "blind spot" problem for pedestrians preparing to cross Route 165 with the light. To some extent, the broadening of the pedestrian entrance ramp into the crosswalk on Route 165 addresses that second problem, as the original design had pedestrians literally stepping directly into the roadway from behind the large switch box that was blocking their view of oncoming traffic coming from down Route 165.

We also posted additional information regarding those design problems, first here, then we posted one specifically addressing stopping distances here, and finally we released a post exposing disturbing details about the prior knowledge of the design flaws by City officials.

Below is an electronic copy of the design improvement, as was approved by City Council earlier this evening. If you "right click" on the design, you can then open it in a separate tab or window for derailed viewing. In that format, it is further "enlargable" by simply clicking once on the image.

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.

Stopping Distances and the Unsafe Crossing

09/10/2010 -- In a previous post here, we noted the following information with respect to the stopping distances of various kinds of vehicles:

. . .
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.
. . . .

Cars:

This website contains a simple and useful formula for calculating the approximate stopping distances of cars (but not trucks). Obviously, cars differ from one type of vehicle to another depending on a number of factors, including the kind of brakes (e.g. four-wheel disc versus standard), the condition of the brakes, the reaction time of the driver, etc. To calculate the total stopping distances of an average car at the speeds likely to be encountered at the intersection of Route 165 and Swan Street --35, 40 or 45 mph -- just insert the speed in with "x" representing the speed of the vehicle. Here is that simple formula -- x² ÷ 20 + x = stopping distance. It includes the driver reaction time, plus the actual braking distance once the breaks are applied.

If the speed of the vehicle is 35 mph, 35² equals 1,225; divided by 20 equals 61.25; plus 35 equals 96.25 feet.

If the speed of the vehicle is 40 mph, 40² equals 1,600; divided by 20 equals 80; plus 40 equals 120 feet.

If the speed of the vehicle is 45 mph, 45² equals 2,025; divided by 20 equals 101.25; plus 45 equals 146.25 feet.


Trucks:

Recently, in response to a request I had made for information, I also received a call from an official with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), who provided me with additional information to clarify the linked chart regarding truck braking distances.

Though the speed limit in the stretch of Route 165 as it is approaching Swan street is 35 MPH, we all know that many vehicles -- whether cars or trucks --are much more likely to be traveling at 40, or in some cases at 45 MPH. So, based on the information in the chart I've calculated the optimal stopping distances for trucks likely to be encountered on that stretch of the roadway.

The first class of such vehicles would be those identified in the chart as "loaded single unit trucks" which would include trucks like UPS delivery trucks, garbage trucks or perhaps a dump truck.

As can be seen from the chart the manufactured standard for stopping distances for such trucks from the time the brakes are pressed to the time the vehicle comes to a complete stops, are as follows at those three speeds -- 35 mph - 106 feet; 40 mph - 138 feet; and, 45 mph - 175 feet.

We then add on to them the varying distances such trucks would travel before the brakes are engaged -- or, an accepted standard reaction time of operators used by "accident reconstructionists" of 1.5 seconds, before they engaged the brakes.

While that time may be longer than would take many operators to react and hit the brake, experts (such as the one linked above) suggest that more lengthy reaction times occur in situations where, as here, a driver encounters an unexpected surprise -- i.e., a pedestrian suddenly stepping into the roadway.

And the liklihood of that occurring is necessitated because the placement of the bulky relay box has blocked both the vision of the pedestrian (to see what may be coming) and of the driver who, until the pedestrian steps into the crosswalk on the roadway, simply has no idea that there is a pedestrian there!

So the combination represents the distance such trucks could travel before coming to a complete halt. Some drivers might react more quickly, which might reduce the distance a bit, but never likely below 1/3 a second, hence the estimated stopping distances for such trucks in the second chart.

Two Chart Range:
Possible Breaking Distance Ranges for "loaded single unit trucks"

Speed Braking Dist. + Reaction Time 1.5 Sec. = Total Braking Dist.
35 MPH 106 feet + 77.99 feet = 182.99 feet
40 MPH 138 feet + 87.99 feet = 225.99 feet
45 MPH 175 feet + 99.00 feet = 274.00 feet

Speed Braking Dist. + Reaction Time 1/3 Sec. = Total Braking Dist.
35 MPH 106 feet + 17.11 feet = 123.11 feet
40 MPH 138 feet + 19.56 feet = 157.56 feet
45 MPH 175 feet + 22.00 feet = 197.00 feet

Note also that both charts are calculated assuming optimal roadway conditions, such a dry pavement.

Any deviation from optimal conditions, of course, would add to the distance. With wet or icy pavement, the distance might be substantially increased accordingly.

And other circumstances can also effect the reaction time of vehicle operators, such as any distraction that tends to otherwise draw the driver's attention -- turning or passing vehicles, or vehicles otherwise operating at different speeds in adjacent lanes, checking rear-view or side mirrors, distractions such as talking on cell phones, eating or drinking beverages, conversing with passengers, and, of course, driving while fatigued, or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Since a reasonable estimate cannot automatically assume the best of all circumstances, the range between the two sets of distances probably represents the total stopping distances for the vast majority of such vehicles at that intersection, without taking into account those additional factors (poor weather, distractions, fatigue, etc.).

Clearly then, leaving that traffic light as currently configured, is an unnecessary invitation to a tragic outcome. We have already had a few pedestrian accidents involving those crossing Rt. 165 in the recent past.

Even a modest correction, such as the temporary one we have suggested above through the installation of a line of clearly visible ground mounted vertical delineators to "square off" the corner, would 1) of necessity reduce the speed of turning vehicles, 2) allow pedestrians to get a look to see what is coming up Rt. 165, 3) actually shorten the "on road" distance pedestrians travel in crossing Route 165, and 4) give both vehicles and pedestrians emerging from South Franklin Street on to Swan Street, greater visibility and reaction time to avoid impacts with such turning vehicles.

Here is a "overview" sketch drawn on a Google Earth photo of that intersection, and a visible view of how that would work to improve safety in those four ways..

The original overview is courtesy of ling time Lambertville resident and traffic design expert, Gary Toth.

The green line sketch suggesting where the ground-mounted verticle delineators could be installed was added by me. If you "click" on the overview photo, it will expand to a readily viewable size.

UPCOMING RESPONSE: The NJDOT responds!

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.