TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY 12, 2003
SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL TIME: 7:00 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
Mayor Aman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Mayor William Aman
Councillor Thomas Delnicki
Councillor Deborah Fine
Councillor Judith Paquin
Councillor Edward F. Havens
Councillor John Pelkey
Members Absent Deputy Mayor Matthew Streeter
Councillor Barbara Barbour
Councillor Paul Burnham
Also Present: Town Manager Matthew B. Galligan
Town Attorney Barry Guliano
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
Marcia Banach, Director of Planning & Zoning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Sgt. Tom Field, Police Department
3. Public Participation - None
4. Communications - None
5. Town Manager’s Report
Mayor Aman asked the Town Manager if he had a report to convey to Council; and Mr. Galligan responded that he would defer to Councillor Pelkey to explain the reason for this meeting.
6. Items for Discussion
A. Traffic Calming
Councillor Pelkey thanked everyone who was there for attending. He explained that his research on the theory of “traffic calming” was precipitated by recent truck and bus traffic problems for the residents of Governor’s Highway.
He credited Planning & Zoning Commission, and the South Windsor Police Department for recognizing the merits of “traffic calming” at almost the same time that Councillor Pelkey became aware of it. The Councillor then introduced Town Engineer Jeff Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle said that this workshop was the result of a daylong Seminar which was attended by Marcia Banach (Dir. of Planning), Sgt. Tom Fields (Police Department), and Mr. Doolittle sponsored by the University of Connecticut Technology Center. This seminar was, in part, put on by VHB and present this evening to present their part of the program were Susan VanBenschoten and Heidi Richards. Saying that these two women had spoken with staff this afternoon, Mr. Doolittle said they would now be presenting a “considerably condensed” version of the program.
First to speak was Susan VanBenschoten, a Traffic Engineer and Managing Director of the Transportation Systems Group from BHB, a consulting firm located in Middletown, Connecticut. Informing those present that she and Heidi Richards, also an Engineer, have worked together for a number of years.
Saying that they had been asked to provide an “education session” this evening, Ms. VanBenschoten said she would be addressing the subject of “traffic calming;” what it is; why it should be considered; and what are some of the “tools” (physical things that can be done to speed up the process). The presentation this evening would end with some case studies, she added.
The three case studies they would be talking about, according to Ms. VanBenschoten, would be Main Street Traffic Calming in Amesbury, Massachusetts (the only project that has been built—about a year old); the Queen Street Pedestrian Plan in Newtown, Connecticut (this study has just been finished and includes suggestions to primarily enhance “pedestrian safety” but does include traffic calming elements); and, finally, Apple Road in Greenwich, Connecticut (an example being used to emphasize the “process”).
6. A. Traffic Calming (Continued)
Using visual aids, Ms. VanBenschoten explained that one of the problems with an area such as Governor’s Highway is that it is “pretty wide open and flat; and drivers may go 15-20 mph over the posted Speed Limit. This sort of thing, she said, discourages other modes of travel—walking, biking, for instance. Also, she said, there’s “no sense of place—it’s just a ‘road’ and all about moving traffic.” Finally, she added, such a road “decreases the livability of the area.”
The engineers and planners “of the world” over the last 20-30 years, according to Ms. VanBenschoten, have started to respond with two (2) concepts: (1) traffic calming (which will be discussed this evening); and (2) contact sensitive design (or solutions)—a way to solve the traffic problem that takes into account the neighborhood.
Ms. VanBenschoten explained that traffic calming is a part of contact sensitive design. For a neighborhood, she said, traffic calming, is often considered the “fix-all or silver bullet” for all of their problems. In downtown and village districts, it’s an opportunity to enhance—possibly even for economic development. Design standards are being scrutinized to see if they are being too “automobile only” focused.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers has defined “traffic calming” as using physical measures to reduce the negative impact of the vehicle; to alter driver behavior; and to improve the conditions for non-motorized travel.
Saying that she would like to dwell on “altering driver behavior” because this segment is, in her opinion, what traffic calming does—either psychologically or physically. This, she said, is the whole idea—it impacts the driver so that he/she slows down and take notice of where they are. Continuing, Ms. VanBenschoten said the “goals” are to slow speeds and reduce cut-through traffic; and, if there is a “physical measure in the road that doesn’t allow you to speed, then you don’t need the Police out there with speed traps.”
Following this, according to Ms. VanBenschoten, it then gets into improving the quality of life—getting into the aesthetics as well as the safety benefits; and can result in “more public space for everybody. However, she said, ”safety,” is the driving force. She used as an example—The Netherlands which, she said, has been very aggressive in the implementation of traffic calming; and, although the United States is “getting there,” it is not as aggressive in this pursuit.
6. A. Traffic Calming (Continued)
She then showed a graft that depicted the fatality rates per 100,000 population in the year 1997 in The Netherlands; and added that if the United State had the same rate of road fatalities as The Netherlands, we could reduce road fatalities, per year, by more than one-half.
The next graph showed the rate of traffic fatalities in the United States over the last 30 years and pointed out the difference over the years as “contact sensitive design” and “traffic calming” is being more and more implemented—she noted that the rate of traffic fatalities is going down.
Safety records show, according to Ms. VanBenschoten, that countries that have been innovators in implementing traffic calming have large decreases in the rate of fatalities; have a lower rate of pedestrian and biker fatalities; and, finally, is bringing a higher rate of pedestrian and bicycle “road share.” She then introduced Heidi Richards who would be discussing “design perspective,” and get into the “traffic calming tools.”
Ms. Heidi Richards said she would, briefly, go over exactly what traffic calming is and what it entails, and the different “tools” in the tool box. She said that the project area is no longer being looked at by engineers and planners merely from the standpoint of how wide the road should, what the speed limit should be, etc., in order to accommodate the anticipated traffic volume for that area. Now, she said, it is being looked at from a much broader point of view and as a larger project—the creation of a “transition zone” and a “gateway,” so that people know they are entering into a different area.
The traffic calming toolbox, according to Ms. Richards, include many different things that can be used to address all the goals Ms. VanBenschoten mentioned previously. The various tools, she continued, include:
“Neck-downs” are the narrowing of a road—actual physical features that stick out into the roadway and help to “shadow” the on-street parking. (She then showed a couple of examples of neck-downs, both of which were in Cambridge, Mass.)
“Chicane” is a variation of the “neck-down” where you start to try to create the slaloming of a street.
6. A. Traffic Calming (Continued)
“Speed Humps” the most common word that people associate with traffic calming. Different from “speed bumps,” speed humps vary in length, and can as long as 22 feet and be 3 or 4 inches high. Generally, she said, what you are trying to do with speed humps is put a physical obstruction in the road that is going to slow someone down.
The key to these speed humps and how they are designed, according to Ms. Richards, is that they’re going to keep a person going the speed limit (i.e., 25 MPH) comfortable as they go over something like this; where, conversely, if they are speeding, they become uncomfortable going over the speed humps.
An integral part of the package required to install the above, according to Ms. Richards, is “signage” and “pavement markings.” Using visual s, Ms. Richard described the effects of a “speed hump.”
Continuing, Ms. Richards introduce more “aggressive-type calming techniques,” such as a “semi-diverter” which is seen more in a “big neighborhood residential area;” one which you would not see, for instance, on an arterial road.
“Median treatments” and “traffic islands,” Ms. Richards said, goes back to the transition area she spoke of previously. She showed an example of a “flat island” poured from concrete, and a “raised island” depending on the width you sought.
She cited the affect on a driver moving along a “flat straight 45 mph road,” and suddenly enter an area with median treatment or traffic islands, and then proceed on to the “gateway” and then into the project area, it will get the driver’s attention and should alter his/her behavior as they enter the “neighborhood.”
All of above traffic calming tools, she added, should be looked at in context of an entire neighborhood because they would be affecting other roads.
6. A. Traffic Calming (Continued)
Ms. Richards then provided a perspective on a “gateway treatment” where the Town could take advantage of putting “islands” in different areas—at intersections, or “mid-block.” The one she was showing was “mid-block,” and is referred to as a “pedestrian refuge” where a pedestrian can cross half-way and then deal with the traffic coming the other way. This system, she added, was particularly popular when planning “senior” or elderly” neighborhoods.
Another very popular traffic calming tool, Ms. Richards continued, is what is known as a “round-about.” These, she said, take the place of a traffic signal or a 4-way stop; and are generally used more as “gateways.” She showed them examples of how effective this tool is; and, in some scenarios, is “better than a traffic signal.”
Different from a large “rotary” with traffic “flying through,” the “round-about, she said, is designed to handle high volume traffic moving along on a 20-25 mph roadway. Ms. Richards then showed a picture of a small “traffic circle” that is used more in neighborhood-type situations.
“Enhanced crosswalks,” although very successful throughout the New England area, bring along with them “maintenance” concerns.
According to Ms. Richards, ‘gateway treatment” can become very creative and can provide a sense of entering an actual neighborhood.
“Period lighting” is another tool, she said, but one that can be costly. The project Ms. Richards showed on the visual aid a project using the period lighting that had been fully funded through State and Federal highway funds—a part of which funding included period lighting.
Other areas now being recognized and used as traffic calming tools, Ms. Richards said, were “landscaping” and “street-scaping” that, again, created a “sense of place” and alerts drivers that there’s ‘something else going on here.”
6. A. Traffic Calming (Continued)
Ms. Richards then asked to touch briefly on something beyond the traffic calming toolbox. First, with regard to emergency vehicles and traffic calming, this is something that needs to be considered if a Town moves forward with the traffic calming concept. “If it slows down a car, it will slow down an emergency vehicle.
Citing the City of Portland, Oregon which has been very involved in traffic calming, Ms. Richards said that they have discovered “you need to add an emergency route to the roadway functional classification”—and they have added this stipulation to their “guidelines.” She advised that once the Town starts looking at roadways that are appropriate and inappropriate for traffic calming, it may wish to stay away from “emergency routes” for this very reason.
Many Towns have gone forward and tried to consider overall traffic guidelines, she said, that take into account traffic volumes, traffic speeds on a road; and, also public buy-in. Many guidelines, according to Ms. Richards have 75% to 90% of the residents on board with this traffic calming idea. This puts some of the responsibility of selling this idea to the neighborhood onto the shoulders of the residents in that area—to get signatures sponsoring this program.
Another key thing, Ms Richards noted, as projects move forward, traffic calming can be retrofitted to existing streets, or it can be something considered “up front” as the Town moves forward on a project. Of major importance, she said, is the inter-connectivity of roadways which helps to reduce travel distances.
Another consideration when planning a traffic-calming project is “where this process is going to put the other volume of traffic that you are diverting, or slowing down.”
6. A. (Continued)
Ms. Richards informed the Council that absolutely “key” to the success of any project her firm had come forward with to date has been public “buy-in” and “public outreach.” Suddenly coming forward with a traffic calming project the public has not first been made aware of and involved in can, in her opinion, make or break a project.
The first steps toward a successful project, Ms. Richards felt the Town was taking this evening via this educational process. Trying to understand what people’s concerns and issues are, up front, also is very important, she said, so that when the Town moves forward you’ve got everyone on board.
The last step of the traffic calming project, Ms. Richards said, is monitoring—it is very important to do “some up-front data collection” so that the Town understands, as a Town, what works and doesn’t work for the Town.
There followed questions from the Members of the Town Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, and those staff members present (including questions regarding traffic calming in retail and/or mall environments) that were answered by Ms. VanBenschoten and Ms. Richards.
Before ending their presentation Ms. VanBenschoten and Ms. Richards said they would now provide renderings and an in-depth explanation of three (3) traffic calming case settings—Amesbury, Massachusetts; Newtown, Connecticut; and Greenwich, Connecticut.
Explaining that the cost associated with these projects had to be kept in mind, Town Manager Matthew Galligan thanked both women for their presentation. He did observe that this evening’s presentation addressed ”pedestrian” concerns more than it did “traffic” concerns. He did mention the significance of this evening’s information with regard to Evergreen Walk.
Councillor Delnicki felt that this evening’s discussion was valuable information for the Town to give thought to when considering and, perhaps, addressing (specifically) the needs of Kelly Road and its residents.
Atty. Guliano also warned, as both Ms. VanBenschoten and Ms. Richards had that once you start diverting traffic on a street like Kelly Road, you may now be sending that traffic onto Avery Street, Dart Hill, or some other arterial road. It would have to be determined exactly who this truly affects--just the Kelly Road people, or the entire area.
6. A. (Continued)
Susan VanBenschoten suggested that when speaking to the State’s Department of Transportation the Town not say “traffic calming.” Better to refer to it as “safety enhancement,” she said.
Also, in conclusion, Councillor Pelkey suggested that the Town “try a few simple calming procedures” to begin with.
B. General Discussion - None
7. Executive Session - None
8. Motion to Adjourn
A Motion to adjourn was made at 9:15 p.m.; was duly seconded, and approved, unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
| 
