WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=n0pR5VMS8K8

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.800 --> 00:00:22.400
All right. All right. Today is Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. Time is 10:04. Calling the traffic commission meeting. Absent from this meeting is Josh Cormier

2
00:00:22.400 --> 00:00:40.320
and Jason Stevens. Chief Mcabine is joining us today in public attendance. First up, approval meeting meeting minutes from March 10th to 2026 meeting. Motion to approve. Second.

3
00:00:40.320 --> 00:01:03.760
All in favor? I >> I carries. All right. Um, as we spoke last meeting, we're going to assign numbers to things that we need to follow for voting purposes. Um, the first one, 26-001,

4
00:01:03.760 --> 00:01:20.720
the light pedestrian crosswalk sign for swing park crossing on Main Street in front of John Sport. Councelor Mack had received a complaint from a resident on witnessing people almost being hit. I know we discussed it last meeting and put it forward to this meeting. Um,

5
00:01:20.720 --> 00:01:37.759
any comments, sir? looked into actually Doug looked into um pricing for solar powered crosswalk systems. They're similar to what we have down there static cableist and they're about 7,100 bucks for the setup. It comes with two setups, one for each side of the street.

6
00:01:37.759 --> 00:01:54.560
Um they are solar powered. Uh I don't think I wouldn't recommend putting them down in this area because of the height of the buildings. They're not going to work. They might work in some other areas, but um this particular system I don't think is going to work down there. Um, so the other option is then either

7
00:01:54.560 --> 00:02:10.160
hardwired or have uh remote. I believe there's a remote wireless that you can get. I just don't know how they would be powered. So that's we're going to have to look into a different setup, but um this at least has been looked into. We can put them maybe in a couple other

8
00:02:10.160 --> 00:02:26.000
areas of the city that uh that it would work. Uh it's just a matter of funding because I don't have this type of money in um Doug's lines and signs budget which is it pays for lines obviously line painting and things

9
00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:43.440
like that. So I recommend if the city's going to move forward things like this is going to have to be funded by the city. >> We want to push this forward to public safety. >> Sure. I'm also going to look into if

10
00:02:43.440 --> 00:03:00.560
there's some other type of system out there, but I think they're going to have to be hardwired, which is going to require excavation and a lot more money. Motion to move to public safety provided we have the uh the cost behind the and

11
00:03:00.560 --> 00:03:33.200
options u second. >> All in favor? All right. >> Item three, 26-002, wording for city parking lots for when parking vans are implemented in designated overnight parking in city- owned lots. Um, I know this has been a a

12
00:03:33.200 --> 00:03:50.319
topic that's been on our agenda a few times. Um, we were waiting last time to see what happened with our recommendation for a hybrid model. I know it went to city council. Was that tabled to review again this year in the offse? >> It was removed. We should be reviewing

13
00:03:50.319 --> 00:04:06.000
that. >> Okay. >> And we should do it sooner. >> Correct. We have time. So, we have plenty of time. >> I think the big thing is just how we're going to word those signs so the public understands. Um,

14
00:04:06.000 --> 00:04:22.479
one of the things because I know we've had a lot of issues with Code Red since they had that security breach. Um, the system isn't working the way it's intended to because it was a rushed system to make up for that security breach. is maybe we see if the city can set up a

15
00:04:22.479 --> 00:04:39.840
hotline number in the event that there is a uh parking van and people are unaware or don't know they can call that number and that's a number we could also put on these signs eventually once we finalize how it's going to work. Um, I think once city

16
00:04:39.840 --> 00:04:55.440
council takes their vote and if it's going to stay the same way, then we make the signs and and designate a uh a phone number which would require um somebody from the city to record, you know, there's a parking in effect on this day

17
00:04:55.440 --> 00:05:10.160
from this time to this time. No parking in Sydney while it's at from this time to this time. And then we could advertise those numbers on those signs. That way if there's a question they can just call that number and get the information they need for that night.

18
00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:27.280
As far as urgency goes, um we're probably only going to have one more traffic committee meeting in what September. >> Yeah. And then it's winter. So >> we might have to have a special one in between Bayon and how city council. >> Yeah. We should, >> but we're going to need something for

19
00:05:27.280 --> 00:05:42.800
formalized from the council so that we can make signs for the parking lots, which is going to take time to print up, time to install. So, I know it's June, but >> No, but we should be talking about it now. I think we should bring it um

20
00:05:42.800 --> 00:06:01.039
the prop the proposal change. It's >> the hybrid reintroduce the hybrid with with the dates that we recommend. which I think the last time we talked December or March. >> I think it was either January or March. >> I think the one we recommended was

21
00:06:01.039 --> 00:06:16.319
January. >> January to March. >> January to March. >> January, February were the two months that we see the most snowfall. >> Okay. >> Um so yeah, we'll get that before council so we can take action over, you know, we we do have throughout the

22
00:06:16.319 --> 00:06:32.479
course of the summer. Um, should we as a committee send a letter to the council to bring it back up or >> or just let them know we're standing by until the signage until

23
00:06:32.479 --> 00:06:47.520
>> Yeah, I mean I can I can I can if I can get it on the Okay. >> Well, I'm It's going to have to go to safety and then I think it'll have to go to safety and then go to the council. >> So, we just table this leave it on the agenda. Yep. We'll leave it We'll leave

24
00:06:47.520 --> 00:07:04.240
it on the agenda um until we have a final say of if it's staying the way it is or if it's changing again. That way just the wording is matching what the current ordinance is. >> Can I? >> Absolutely. [clears throat] Um the

25
00:07:04.240 --> 00:07:19.759
discussion last time during the uh council meeting um I didn't speak regarding the park. Um I think the concern at that time was the timeliness of it. um it was in the midst of the season and um I think everybody

26
00:07:19.759 --> 00:07:35.919
the general consensus was is they didn't want to make a decision in the middle of the season that something had already started. Um, I think this we probably should try to expedite this as best possible to get it before the council again before maybe been September or

27
00:07:35.919 --> 00:07:59.199
October or November we start having snow events. Um, because I just we probably want to try to get a notification changes as as soon as possible. >> Agree. >> Thank you. So, we're going to table 26-002

28
00:07:59.199 --> 00:08:13.280
and keep it on the agenda until we're able to address it. Uh, item number four, 26-003, designated 25 mileph zones and criteria for determining areas. DNE provided us with the considerations

29
00:08:13.280 --> 00:08:31.440
and the streets recommended to start. >> It It's just the first crack. Obviously, the idea is a welcome. Uh I looking at it, I like the way it looks right now. Um and then as you know, I think it's

30
00:08:31.440 --> 00:08:47.120
something we'll have to probably evaluate on a yearly basis uh based on uh accident data, um traffic complaint data that we get and um radar data. Usually my officers if we

31
00:08:47.120 --> 00:09:02.560
have a speeding issue they do radar logs on the shifts um usually do it for about two weeks and we can compose that data and see okay is there is there a problem with the speeds or is the road too narrow to allow for 30 we need to go to

32
00:09:02.560 --> 00:09:24.320
25. Yeah. So, considerations. Um, that's just so that we don't get over uh overloaded with requests as far as on every single street. So, as far as consideration, more or less a checklist for us to take a look at. Yep. >> Um, you just brought up another one,

33
00:09:24.320 --> 00:09:42.000
roadwidth, you know, put that on. I think that's or um >> road geography. Yep. >> Road geometry, I should say. Might be another one. take a look at it. Um, but that was just the start as far as where do we want to go from this? Do we want

34
00:09:42.000 --> 00:10:00.320
do we want to just finalize finalize a list and start putting signs up or >> Yeah, I think if so we send this list to public safety. I think is first because the city the council already

35
00:10:00.320 --> 00:10:26.240
voted on to allow us to do it. I don't think it need to go to public. >> Yeah. Any additional recommendations? >> All right. So, we'll vote on that to send to public safety for review.

36
00:10:26.240 --> 00:10:54.399
>> So, moved. I will update considerations. I'll add road with road geometry. >> All in favor to send a proposal to public safety. >> I carries morning Jason.

37
00:10:54.399 --> 00:11:14.959
Hey Jason. All right. So, we'll send that to public safety. Uh, item number 5,26-004. Parking issue, Allen Street, uh, sighteline issue at top of hill with cars parking at the top. Uh, Chief

38
00:11:14.959 --> 00:11:31.519
Mcabine received a citizen complaint. So, if you're coming off of Park Street and you're going up the hill, there's that house. There's already no parking signs. Just pass that house. when cars park on the right side and the left side

39
00:11:31.519 --> 00:11:48.720
when you come up and crest that hill you can't see that car coming up and if you're both in the middle of the road so looking at that maybe extending the no parking a little further or changing it to the other side of the road

40
00:11:48.720 --> 00:12:04.480
>> yep um the issue was brought to me by resident West Avenue there's a multif family home at the top All street headed towards Park Street and West End Avenue. Um many times vehicles are actually parked on both

41
00:12:04.480 --> 00:12:21.279
sides of the top of the hill. So that it's it's it's barely a car width to get through. So when he as you come up with the cars coming at him >> um at the top. So um that's the general issue with with what's going on right

42
00:12:21.279 --> 00:12:37.839
there. I believe there's some road measurements that were taken on the road. >> Yes, I did take those and I >> So, those are the pictures of >> I did send an email. >> Yeah, I know. I measured I forget the

43
00:12:37.839 --> 00:12:53.600
exact >> I believe it accommodates parking on one side of the road. >> We don't have a center line painted there, right? >> No, >> no, I do have pictures. The other thing is when you're pulling out of Stewart, believe it or not,

44
00:12:53.600 --> 00:13:09.279
Stewart's a yield at Allen. I think just because of the hill over the years, they didn't want a stop sign. They installed >> um for sight linage and pulling out of Stewart. I would extend the no parking down the Stewart side of it.

45
00:13:09.279 --> 00:13:28.240
>> The street I they obviously with the width of the road, it doesn't accommodate parking sides. >> Um so whatever side is determined if the vest should be restricted for my my recommendation restrict parking one side of the road. >> So down over the hill

46
00:13:28.240 --> 00:13:44.720
>> over the hill it does the road does open up as you get further down Allen Street. >> From my recollection the if you're coming up from Burks. >> Yep. Right. >> If anybody calls the right side should be the ones. >> So the right side is where the the

47
00:13:44.720 --> 00:14:00.399
original parking zone is >> pass street. That's where the original um when they repaved the road several years ago. >> Okay. >> Um it was restricted on that side. >> The left side that we're talking >> it's it's whatever side but but it's but that basically stops I think it's like

48
00:14:00.399 --> 00:14:17.920
100 ft past steward I think but parking stops there and then it allows for parking at both sides. The issue is is that >> the road isn't wide enough to accommodate parking and then the resident is seeing cars parked at both sides and then cars coming at them when they come up the hill. So whatever side,

49
00:14:17.920 --> 00:14:33.839
you know, I thought I would recommend restricting parking one side until it opens back up outside of a 36 foot road width from to accommodate two parkings. >> So why don't I go measure from Stewart Street from a point on Stewart Street down a wheel and I'll try to come up

50
00:14:33.839 --> 00:14:50.399
with where it widens up enough to accommodate two parking and then we'll just >> whatever side whatever side that that you feel is appropriate. Do can we do a um a trial period? Is that >> Yeah, that's what we've done in the past.

51
00:14:50.399 --> 00:15:06.079
>> Yep. >> Um do we want to get that information first? Kind of figure out what we want to do. Come back and with the zoning >> get the measurements and uh come back with that >> and then we'll if it's going to we're

52
00:15:06.079 --> 00:15:21.680
going to keep it on that side or if we're going to which side makes most sense. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm just looking at I'm looking at it now and and as you head from Park Street up the hill um and then over the hill on the left side in that direction, there's no homes or anything. It's just

53
00:15:21.680 --> 00:15:37.399
>> That's where I was thinking. >> It's wooded. >> That's where I was thinking. >> But but the currently the way the parking no parking sits, it's on the other side from on the Ste side. So >> obviously just

54
00:15:37.680 --> 00:15:57.759
that >> Yeah. because allowing parking on that wooded side, you know, one of people saying, "Oh, they're park in front of my house all day." So, if you allow parking on that side, >> we should take a look. Make a recommendation for you. >> All right. D's going to take

55
00:15:57.759 --> 00:16:24.399
measurements right back. And then we'll decide 60day trial. I'll leave that on the agenda until we have that finalized. Um, item six, mayor's office received an

56
00:16:24.399 --> 00:16:40.480
email with an attachment on putting stop signs at intersections Fernwood Drive to Leo Drive, Bear Hill Road to Fernwood Drive, Marggo's Way to Bear Hill, Marggo's Way to Leo Drive,

57
00:16:40.480 --> 00:16:56.880
Bailey Creek Park to Leo Drive, Fieldstone Drive to Leo Drive. Both entrances Um, I pulled the traffic data from 2019. We've had no accidents

58
00:16:56.880 --> 00:17:13.919
up there. Um, and to my knowledge, this is our first complaint and it was sent, I believe, anonymously. This is what was sent. You guys want to look that over. I think the same um

59
00:17:13.919 --> 00:17:30.480
individual also complained there was no sign on Margo Way, which went up and installed two signs up there >> instantly. Got a complaint from someone that's going to have to mow around the sign pole. Uh >> okay. >> Now, but um as far as the installation of the signs, obviously they have to be

60
00:17:30.480 --> 00:17:47.360
approved by the council, but um it's just an additional set of signs throughout the neighborhood. A lot of people don't like mowing around them. They're unfortunately they're in the corners which where we blow snow. Um it becomes a maintenance issue. If we don't need to add them, my recommendation is

61
00:17:47.360 --> 00:18:06.559
is not to. That's just where I stand. >> All right. >> Yeah. There's no data to support it. I don't I don't see a need. >> Yeah. Um like I said, the traffic data doesn't show any accidents. Um I haven't received any complaints up there for the

62
00:18:06.559 --> 00:18:22.160
need for stop signs. Uh only complaint I've gotten up in that area is people not stopping at the stop sign. Brookside and that's actually the like the person that lives right down the corner. That's where they had come from. Um we had done

63
00:18:22.160 --> 00:18:49.640
some enforcement out there. Uh there's not a lot of heavy traffic flow through there. >> Yeah. >> I mean I didn't live there when there were many houses. So increased population

64
00:18:53.039 --> 00:19:11.440
>> is there's no issues. You're saying there's no >> Yeah, we have no no accidents at any of those intersections. Um and I went back all the way to 2019 had no accidents. the density in the area

65
00:19:11.440 --> 00:19:28.000
>> enough to warrant that two cars could be traveling along because it seems like of all these I've looked at the map of these streets but most of them are intersections that like are crossed between like the center area of development. >> Yeah, just bring the way the branches

66
00:19:28.000 --> 00:19:43.360
out into the neighborhoods up there just how the roads are are run. So even with the increased population out there, is there enough density that something like that could happen at the given speed limit or the area of the development? It seems like based on the data that we

67
00:19:43.360 --> 00:19:58.240
have, it seems unlikely. >> Yeah, a lot of those history a lot of those are like T intersections in >> there's clear sight, so you don't have like shrubbery or buildings on the corner that are limited. So there like hills that could like limit sight line

68
00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:15.840
from there are very very clear for that area. It's very open trees. Um yeah I don't like I said we haven't received any complaints up there

69
00:20:15.840 --> 00:20:41.200
even really speeding much. Like I said it's just that one stop sign on side that we had and it was usually at um in the morning hours with um school bus stops. Do we want to um give it time, monitor

70
00:20:41.200 --> 00:20:59.200
it moving forward? I I mean >> I don't know what >> we did monitor it. Um we'll leave it on the agenda like we had spoken about um and we'll continue water in the area. Um,

71
00:20:59.200 --> 00:21:16.480
and see if we get any other any other complaints. >> Deputy chief. >> Yes. >> Um, are we is there I don't recall the email, but was there specific times listed there? >> No, force. >> There was no times. The person even said that there's been no accidents there.

72
00:21:16.480 --> 00:21:32.720
Um, but they're trying to prevent one from happening. But there wasn't any time frames or >> I'm just thinking of enforcement purposes. I mean even just

73
00:21:32.720 --> 00:21:48.640
information but >> Oh yeah, I can we can have officers monitor those areas at select times uh throughout shifts um when the call volume allows. We can definitely do that. I think given the

74
00:21:48.640 --> 00:22:04.320
like mention of the residents and especially the children that live in the area if preference could be given to the times of the day that children would normally be utilizing the outdoor areas after school times. I know we're getting

75
00:22:04.320 --> 00:22:21.360
to the summer. Um, so that would change how we monitor it over the summer period. But, um, [snorts] I think that's that's especially their concern just over the the common provided. >> Yep.

76
00:22:21.360 --> 00:22:37.840
>> Yeah. We definitely target times where, you know, especially with the summer, like afternoon time, kids are out riding bikes and having fun. The other thing is is that we're treating the entire area as a request. So if there's an incident or even if

77
00:22:37.840 --> 00:22:54.159
someone close call at one intersection, does that mean we now put stop signs at every single intersection in the neighborhood or do we look at each one individual? That's I mean, >> right, >> we never really had a request for an entire neighborhood, >> right, come from us.

78
00:22:54.159 --> 00:23:10.520
>> I think that's pretty much every intersection in that neighborhood. >> It is. I mean, uh, Margo doesn't even have a house on it. Um, just something also to consider. Some some intersections are way more defined than others, >> right?

79
00:23:10.880 --> 00:23:27.120
>> Yeah. We'll leave it on the agenda. Um, like I said, I'll have officers try to see if we can collect some data by monitoring those areas when it allows. Um, and like Jason said, we'll try those

80
00:23:27.120 --> 00:23:43.520
hours um when there's more activity in the neighborhood, especially with children in the summertime. >> Yeah. Even like morning peak hours type thing worth it when we get people leaving for work, >> too. Yeah. That's the only time I could

81
00:23:43.520 --> 00:23:59.200
really think of. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Basketball. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's another issue. >> Which of course isn't allowed. >> No. All right. So, that'll stay on the

82
00:23:59.200 --> 00:24:17.039
agenda and we'll monitor reevaluate item number 726-005 stop sign Cottage Street at Park Street brought by councelor Mack. Floor is open for discussion on this.

83
00:24:17.039 --> 00:24:32.400
So, we took a look. I went up there with Doug. Um the geometry of the intersection is in order to put a stop sign where you can see it coming up cottage, it would have to be set back quite a bit from the intersectional park. What's going to happen is people are going to run the stop sign because

84
00:24:32.400 --> 00:24:48.159
you're going to have to get up to see up cars coming down Park Street. >> Um it's kind of a the geometry of the intersection. It's not a great place. There's no great place to put the stop sign. There is a sign that has the park the name Monument Park sign and the

85
00:24:48.159 --> 00:25:03.760
street sign. However, if you put the sign on that, it's going to extend out over the sidewalk about 15 half the width of a side of a stop sign and it's at eye level up on the park up on the up on the hill which not a great place. You

86
00:25:03.760 --> 00:25:20.240
got kids and people walk around that's going to be patrolling protruding out kind of over that eye level at the park. Um, so we took a look as far as some ideas if funding is available, maybe take a look at changing the geometry of that intersection. Um, maybe a little

87
00:25:20.240 --> 00:25:35.039
bump out or something, eliminate right-hand turns because there's no parking. Rob would mention there's no parking up on Mon Park on that side. So, is there any need? How many vehicles actually come up cottage and turn right? So, if you change the geometry, made it

88
00:25:35.039 --> 00:25:52.240
more of a perpendicular to park. Y >> be able to put the stop and eliminate a right turn so the sign doesn't get wiped out. It's just something. >> Yeah, I sat there the other day and kind of looked at it. Um my my thought was

89
00:25:52.240 --> 00:26:09.360
making that a three-way stop. Um because the big issue seems to be one cottage street if they're coming out to turn left, they do have to get up a ways to get that line of sight. And we've eliminated parking on one side, so we definitely have more of a line of sight. Um but it's the traffic off of Central

90
00:26:09.360 --> 00:26:24.640
Street to park. Uh carrying it probably a little faster. Um so even if they look and they don't see any coming and they go and next thing you know there's a car there. Um I think if you made that a three-way stop, you'd be able to put

91
00:26:24.640 --> 00:26:39.520
that stop on Cottage back a little further because they'd be able to see the stop sign in front of the Elks and then they'd be able to see the stop sign to the left and see the car stopping and then know, okay, it's good to go. Um the

92
00:26:39.520 --> 00:26:54.320
the other option I thought of was making it a one-way street. Um you go on the opposite of Vernon Street, which basically all traffic coming off park would be able to go to Cottage. Uh Central Street would not be able to go to Cottage Street. That eliminates a

93
00:26:54.320 --> 00:27:10.720
right-hand turn or a lefthand turn um for traffic going that way. Um I also pulled the traffic data and went back to 2019 again. Um we've only had one accident in that area. um since 2000 since January 1st of 2019. Um as of

94
00:27:10.720 --> 00:27:26.320
yesterday, we've only had one accident at that specific intersection. >> If I may, back to the uh Park Street side. >> Yep. >> We have received over the years speeding complaints, cars coming off of Central Street. Um obviously it's a downhill

95
00:27:26.320 --> 00:27:42.960
geometry, so usually people even even if you get off the gas, you're still coasting down that road in a pretty good clip. >> Um stop sign would force people to slow down. Obviously, the concern there would be just like anything new is uh >> Yeah.

96
00:27:42.960 --> 00:27:59.600
>> going through it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um so the same thing when they changed the entire downtown 15 years ago. >> Yeah. >> Um it required a lot of enforcement and education and because it was completely different >> setup. Um that would slow people down

97
00:27:59.600 --> 00:28:17.720
for sure. Stop sign obviously. um they they wouldn't maybe be as hot coming off of Central Street on Park Street. So it would slow things down a bit. So my two cents >> I mean if we did install soft

98
00:28:33.440 --> 00:28:49.120
We do get we've we have do get complaints there. Not recently in my memory, but we have received complaints on the past. >> Yeah, we looked at changing the the geometry of Central Street a couple years ago before we paid. We wanted people to come down Central and have to slow take up

99
00:28:49.120 --> 00:29:08.720
>> right hand. >> Right hand turn. It didn't fly. You could do a trial. >> Get a cheese wheel out there. Stop. That's an option. Do a three-way trial.

100
00:29:08.720 --> 00:29:23.600
>> Three-way trial. >> See how it works. >> I mean, there's definitely I think there's a need for that stop sign on on cottage, but without reconfiguring, >> I don't think this would be the most costefficient way to do the three-way,

101
00:29:23.600 --> 00:29:40.720
>> right? Because then you can maybe avoid redoing that radius, right? Um, >> you might want to make a motion. >> Um, >> I think it's a good trial. Um, I don't typically like using stop signs as a speed limit as a speed control, but I

102
00:29:40.720 --> 00:30:03.760
think in this case, given the sight lines and intersection, I think it's a good idea >> to do a 60day trial. Second. >> All in favor of 60-day trial three-way stop. >> I motion passes. All right. So, we won't

103
00:30:03.760 --> 00:30:25.600
get on that. >> Yeah. Okay. So, we have we have to put that forward to safety and then the council has to vote on it. I believe >> does the council have to >> I don't think no 60 days. We've just we do them. >> We've done it and then we put it forward to public safety after the 60 days to

104
00:30:25.600 --> 00:30:40.320
say >> if we received any complaints or anything like that. And then you guys >> got public public safety signed off on the 60-day trial. >> Yep. >> Uh and then but we can either do that or you know you're

105
00:30:40.320 --> 00:30:55.679
saying that we can just go to it. >> Yeah. I think we've done that with a couple like restricted parking areas. We did 60 days and then we pushed it forward to public safety after the 60 days to say we haven't received any complaints. We've monitored the area.

106
00:30:55.679 --> 00:31:11.760
>> We did regular for a lot longer than 60 days. >> And then the council public hearing or something to have anybody get your name on it. >> I can if um public safety wants something I can type something up and just let you know we're in the process of doing a 60-day trial.

107
00:31:11.760 --> 00:31:27.440
>> So it's a head up if it's on your radar. >> Great. Are we going to um do stop lines the whole works for the trial because Doug can remove those if after the trial? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'd say if we're going to put the stop signs, you should have the stop. >> I think it needs to be as high

108
00:31:27.440 --> 00:31:44.480
visibility as possible. I might have to order three flashing signs, which won't be a huge delay, but >> uh out of curiosity, what the bike path crosses just past that? >> What's that? >> The bike path. Is it just pass? >> Yeah, where's the main crosswalk? Is it

109
00:31:44.480 --> 00:32:03.840
on right where Park Street Park exits out to the other side? >> I'm just thinking of any structures or issues. >> We'll have to when you get the stuff go out there and figure out exactly how we want to do it.

110
00:32:03.840 --> 00:32:23.840
Would you guys >> Yeah, let me know you guys. So, I'll type that up and get that out to public safety. And number eight, setting meeting dates for remainder of the year on a quarterly

111
00:32:23.840 --> 00:33:01.600
basis. Um, so if we stay on a quarterly, next meeting would be September. We want to do September 8th. Labor Days. And then obviously if something comes up that we need to address, we can have

112
00:33:01.600 --> 00:33:19.559
September 8th. Again, sorry for the timing mishap on my part. >> 9 would be better. >> 9 a.m. work better for everybody? >> 9 a.m. Yeah, that's fine. All right. And then the next one would be December.

113
00:33:19.919 --> 00:33:42.960
We want to do December 8th. That's a Tuesday. Kind of beginning before holidays pick up and shoot for the same time. >> Sure. >> Right. >> All right. Uh, new business. has a discussion on safer streets project.

114
00:33:42.960 --> 00:33:59.840
>> So I gave you all a handout on what I want to talk about. So the cities were take undertaking a safety action plan to promote a vision zero policy which is to eliminate um fatalities on our roadways um motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians.

115
00:33:59.840 --> 00:34:17.359
um part of the grant that we received, we can use some of the money for demonstration projects. Um and working with our our consultant on this um we kind of feel that as far as demonstration projects, the most effective thing we could do is address

116
00:34:17.359 --> 00:34:34.240
um speeds on some of our roads um in accident data to support um putting in these speed cushions. Um so speed cushions are a hybrid of a speed bump which allows um emergency vehicles to

117
00:34:34.240 --> 00:34:51.839
basically straddle the middle um hump and get through while when you have two-way traffic u motorists have to drive over them unless they choose not to if there's no oncoming traffic. Um so in this packet it it basically describes what they are um a little bit about the

118
00:34:51.839 --> 00:35:09.440
project and then um examples of temporary speed cushions. Um we've identified three locations um on Pine Street between J and West Line I think or two locations on Pine Street. um a

119
00:35:09.440 --> 00:35:25.920
location on Nickel Street and then a location on Pearl Street um between Glazier and Reservoir. Um basically what these are is they're traffic calming device. Um these locations have been identified more for

120
00:35:25.920 --> 00:35:42.320
crash data than the speed data. The speed data doesn't really show that the speed is a problem. However, with the number of resident complaints we got through this project, those those areas were identified. I know discussing this with Nick prior to the meeting, he kind

121
00:35:42.320 --> 00:35:58.320
of agreed with the locations based on resident complaints to the the police department, especially Nickel Street, um the the school there. Um that usually is a a big issue during the school year with speeding and whatnot. So that I

122
00:35:58.320 --> 00:36:16.400
think would be a good spot to start. Um and even with Pine Street with the library there and the assisted living facility, uh every time we go there, they're always saying cars are flying by there. >> Yeah. >> Um so this is um this is a technique

123
00:36:16.400 --> 00:36:32.079
that Federal Highway Administration is promoting as a a speed calming uh or traffic calming. Um, again, this would be a temporary uh similar to what we just did for a 60-day trial. They're proposing a two-month trial. It would

124
00:36:32.079 --> 00:36:47.920
include some traffic data collection prior to to get existing baseline and then traffic collection throughout um the installation or at least through a portion of the installation um to see if there's an effect to see if it act if it's working or not. Um so there's money

125
00:36:47.920 --> 00:37:03.040
available in the grant to do this. So, what I would do, and I I don't know how we want to handle this if we want to come back and have a a meeting uh unfortunately to um to vote because I think under new business and I don't know if we want to vote on this today or

126
00:37:03.040 --> 00:37:20.480
or talk about it more. Um the plan, the safety action plan is due to be done in November where this is a two-month project. We'd have to kind of move this along. >> Yep. >> This has only come up now as part of what they're planning. Um we don't have to do it. Um, but the money is available

127
00:37:20.480 --> 00:37:37.839
to do it. Um, I personally like the idea. I think because it's data driven as well, we we get data back to know if it's working or not. It's not working. >> We don't ever, you know, go forward with it. >> Um, if we find that it it works great. We then can talk about doing them on a

128
00:37:37.839 --> 00:37:52.960
per permanent basis. um or maybe even continue with the temporary um which we have to buy under the grant and you know continue to see how it goes but I just wanted to talk to the commission about it because

129
00:37:52.960 --> 00:38:09.200
obviously we'd have to get approval to do so >> not that we're going to get snow in some impact with >> um according to the consultants in prior installations in other communities it's not an issue that that communities as much as they plowing you you know, is

130
00:38:09.200 --> 00:38:25.119
always one of the big issues with these. Um, they're built in a way that um not necessarily temporary ones cuz those are are temporary. >> Um, but when they're permanent paved, plows supposedly ride right over them. >> I know Dane had a comment about >> I've seen them.

131
00:38:25.119 --> 00:38:41.119
>> Dane had a comment about snow in between the speed cushions and and how do you >> you get rid of that? And I I don't know. I don't have an answer for that other than we use a lot. >> I hate to be Debbie Downer. I don't know that I could clearly see it when I when I looked at it. And if you're going to leave it open for emergency vehicles

132
00:38:41.119 --> 00:38:56.960
like the middle part of it, >> yeah, >> there there could be snow there in the winter. And does it impact safety vehicles getting through? Probably not. Um >> I don't know, but but there's, you know, there is some history that these are

133
00:38:56.960 --> 00:39:13.040
working. um our consultant who's working on this, you know, they understand because of course I came into it with a kind of a a negative Debbie Downer outlook on, you know, all the issues that will come up if this is proposed. Um they've assured me, they've seen them in other communities, they've done them

134
00:39:13.040 --> 00:39:29.119
and they seem to work. And uh one thing that they did tell me was one town that was, you know, pushing back on it, they actually installed them at their DPW facility and then plowed on them and ended up being, you know, it's okay. I guess it's, you know, it works and um

135
00:39:29.119 --> 00:39:44.800
but that's why it's a demonstration project. >> Sure. >> So, if the commission likes, we can want to try and schedule another meeting. We have some other things we could >> Yep. So, we want to try to do something July because >> yeah, >> you probably want to get those

136
00:39:44.800 --> 00:40:02.040
commissions in by like September at the latest, right? >> So, if we let's see if we do a July meeting, we vote on it because we can vote on it to do it on a temporary basis. take time to procure it. Um, set up, get the existing data. Um,

137
00:40:03.280 --> 00:40:18.240
September, October. I have a recommendation. I recommend we vote now to have them demonstrated on the other locations. They might be able to get in early and then during the course of the summer where there's more pedestrian traffic,

138
00:40:18.240 --> 00:40:33.440
we just uh move forward with the demonstrations. So then we have some data to go off on the next meeting. >> You want to just I'm good with the locations. You guys are >> forward it now and then just reassess on

139
00:40:33.440 --> 00:40:50.720
the September 8th meeting on the data. >> So you want me to turn loose on this? >> I would rather do it now than in the winter. >> When school start this year right before Labor Day probably Labor Day is late this year.

140
00:40:50.720 --> 00:41:05.440
I just I just don't want to try it in the winter and then we're out in November. >> Yeah. No. Well, I I mean, this would be if if we waited and went to another meeting and vote voted on it at a meeting July, it's probably pushing it up against the end of the the project window to when we're going to have the

141
00:41:05.440 --> 00:41:22.400
safety the the safety action plan in place and hopefully headed to the council. Um, so yeah, I mean I'm I'm happy to >> do a vote on the demo, get the demo going, um, because then it would carry us into the beginning of school year so we have data to show how it's affecting

142
00:41:22.400 --> 00:41:36.640
the school traffic as opposed to the summer traffic. >> I'm asking to compare it with that. >> Great. I want to make a motion on that. I'll make a motion that Rob goes ahead with the slider up the demonstration as

143
00:41:36.640 --> 00:42:07.359
soon as possible. All in favor, we go forward with the demo of the speed cushions. >> All right. Um, any updates? Uh, just I met with the mayor regarding Yep. This is not a firm pating list by

144
00:42:07.359 --> 00:42:25.280
any means because Um, we at least went over a draft list. I got to get cost on it. We're currently in Rockwater Branch. That's a go. We're in there now doing the small little neighborhood replacing the walks. We're going to add crosswalks where um where the sidewalks are. Um, so

145
00:42:25.280 --> 00:42:41.280
we're currently working on that. Sand reset that road. We're looking at redoing it. I'm going to add a sidewalk, a consistent road width for the entire length from West Street to Clark. uh and add a sidewalk for the entire length of that. Um I believe that street is also a

146
00:42:41.280 --> 00:42:58.079
go. The other road that is a absolute is east Broadway because you're doing a project up there doing walks and crosswalks and stuff. So we're going to come in after probably in the fall then mill and pave that section and get that done as well. Uh so those are I believe definitates. Uh we're also looking at

147
00:42:58.079 --> 00:43:14.720
Reagan Greenwood Min Marquette. I don't know what I can afford to pay for around that. We're also looking at Summer and Chelsea Street, that little neighborhood. Uh, fortunately in that area, there's a giant uh culvert that goes under the intersection of Chelsea and Summer that needs to be replaced.

148
00:43:14.720 --> 00:43:29.040
So, we're going to look at trying to narrow that up and square it up the intersection and make it more of a perpendicular intersection. Um, there's some land taking issues that we're we're looking as there. And the other road is Maple Street that we're looking at. So, just to give you an idea what we're

149
00:43:29.040 --> 00:43:45.440
looking at for streets. Anybody have anything? >> Um, I do. If you uh regarded the email I'd sent to all day regarding updating and kind of changing the rules of how we're

150
00:43:45.440 --> 00:44:00.720
reporting here to the commission. I know we've already started uh specifically we're reging every meeting now and um setting we're setting going to be setting dates uh quarterly dates for the remainder of the year and then at the

151
00:44:00.720 --> 00:44:16.960
last meeting this year we'll we'll set the four for next year. Um I left these over there that's that will allow emergency meetings as needed to address any emergency action items that you need. Um, and these will be set with

152
00:44:16.960 --> 00:44:32.400
very little flexibility. I'd kind of like to fur this up and keep them. Um, the other I I the we're individually tracking every single issue brought to traffic commission. Now, um I I want to

153
00:44:32.400 --> 00:44:49.920
track from birth to death. So, wherever it dies or gets to, I want to know. And then we're going to make them publicly available so anybody can go on and check and find out where if they complain. councelor or me or whomever it where their issue is

154
00:44:49.920 --> 00:45:06.880
um council Sony where you're representative on on council I believe every council issue should come through you to this council there should be everything and and everything that comes to this council should be in some sort of some sort of public document email

155
00:45:06.880 --> 00:45:22.319
memo whatever else but it should be in public uh for in a format that the public can can Um, I think that it's going to keep things more streamlined and um, I want accountability and transparency with

156
00:45:22.319 --> 00:45:37.440
everything we're addressing here. Uh, I again, I put that in in the email I sent to you guys. If you have any thoughts or concerns, I mean, this is we certainly want to tighten this up as best possible um, and establish some

157
00:45:37.440 --> 00:45:56.400
best practices. So, any feedback Yeah, I know we talked about it uh last meeting as well. Um and the chief is kind of reiterating that stuff. Um I think it's good because it's going to help us stay on task with things and um things don't get lost in the weeds

158
00:45:56.400 --> 00:46:15.800
because I can get a bunch of emails. Um if I know specifically like I'm getting an email from you and if you've got anything um can send to you guys. Um just makes it easier so I don't lose sight of what needs to go on the agenda. Yeah.

159
00:46:20.560 --> 00:46:38.079
>> Does anybody have anything else? >> Just to get on everyone's radar, we did receive um confirmation from Mass DOT that they're going to be funding the Culver replacement project on Keys Road. Um so they're funding that in full. Um

160
00:46:38.079 --> 00:46:56.400
so when there is going to be an impact on traffic as that is the main artery um for all the residents um north of Keys Road. Um we'll make sure that this uh commission is aware of uh what the um you know plate or or

161
00:46:56.400 --> 00:47:12.640
whatever the the um efforts that we have for um maintaining availability for them to travel to the rest of the city. >> Nice job. Yeah, it's great. Awesome. >> It was it was a very welcomed welcomed

162
00:47:12.640 --> 00:47:29.920
email. We were thinking we were going to have to get multiple grants together and they ended up reaching out to us and and asking if we wanted to submit for uh for full funding. Very happy to receive that. Hopefully uh hopefully the residents and people who uh utilize the

163
00:47:29.920 --> 00:47:48.560
area owned by the North County Land Trust north of there also um are uh get to experience it a little bit more um well as uh we make those upgrades. >> Anything else

164
00:47:48.560 --> 00:48:05.280
inut? >> Oh, I just I just have two questions. First, I apologize for being late. I was in meeting um I was just, you know, that you scheduled the meeting for September 8th. I'm hoping if your parking van decision that you come up with will come to the council early this year. Whatever

165
00:48:05.280 --> 00:48:22.319
you decide prior to me arriving and I appreciate I know we all >> Yep. Because we had already sent it to the council. I know you guys had tabled it. All I said was table bring that back up. We I >> if you're staying with that same

166
00:48:22.319 --> 00:48:38.079
proposal, then it should be then it should be reintroduced as a council then. I didn't know if you were considering altering your previous proposal based on feedback from the meeting in December. >> Uh I I mean obviously you knew where we stood on that when we discussed it. I

167
00:48:38.079 --> 00:48:53.040
think we need to make some type of my recommendation is to make some type of hybrid. Um, my wish would be to go back to the old way. Um, because >> because truthfully it was, and I think I've had the DBW director and I have had this conversation many times over the

168
00:48:53.040 --> 00:49:09.839
years. Um, when we had a hard hard date set, um, people knew when to get their cars off the road. People knew and it was much easier to clear the roads. Um, because everybody kind of got it was a muscle memory. They got used to it. Um, I understand and and I I do get that

169
00:49:09.839 --> 00:49:25.280
there's a lot more vehicles on the road now and people multiple cars. I I I'm not unsympathetic to that. Um but something has to kind of give to this particular situation. We need to figure something out because no no fault of DBW, the roads are not getting cleared

170
00:49:25.280 --> 00:49:41.359
in as timely a manner as they used to because when the roads are clear, you know, you make two swipes down the road and it's done. But now you're, you know, going around, it looks like a swallowing course like I think I alluded to in the meeting and it just then they have to go back and clean it up and and it's just

171
00:49:41.359 --> 00:49:57.119
it becomes a a much more cumbersome process. So we've during the months that we have are more likely to get snowing, we're more likely to get snow events, you know, I think January and February are certainly a good place to start. to

172
00:49:57.119 --> 00:50:12.400
>> Yeah, >> that was our recommendation was January [clears throat] January 1st to March 1st um just to try to alleviate um trying to find parking for four or five months to two months might make things a little

173
00:50:12.400 --> 00:50:27.760
easier for people and that is I mean this past winter was a little different but usually we see more snow in February and that keeps the streets Um but yeah, that was our recommendation. Obviously, you guys have

174
00:50:27.760 --> 00:50:44.960
the ability to amend it if you want to send it back to us for anything. Absolutely. Um but yeah, I was on our we'd like to get edited now. It's still warm out. Um we also have the signs in the parking lot and we can't go forward with that so we know. Is it staying? Is

175
00:50:44.960 --> 00:51:06.960
it changing? That way those signs can go more appropriate than the Obviously when you call >> I appreciate that but I do agree with you. I think we have to get back to the set the set time period. We're all

176
00:51:06.960 --> 00:51:23.200
preachers of habit and it worked for years and years >> well and I think we're now I think we're true dependent on >> Yes. And they don't always the system doesn't always work. the system doesn't in there. You know, we were we spend a a significant portion of our time, you

177
00:51:23.200 --> 00:51:38.559
know, the deput chief going back from court red too when when the when we told vehicles, >> hey, did this person get, you know, this and we have to go back and look. I just think my opinion is is if it's a set date, it's a hard date in the new code platform. They haven't did it quickly

178
00:51:38.559 --> 00:51:55.359
because of it has not been working. Um, and I've spent many hours about me and then I show that you know what happened. Um yeah so I don't know I know

179
00:51:55.359 --> 00:52:18.960
there was talk um office about looking at a different kind of system that relying on technology I think is kind of an easy outing outside of snow should know that you

180
00:52:18.960 --> 00:52:39.079
can't park on the streets out going through the set way is just a lot easier. I agree. >> Thank you. And and thank you to the um commission for the consideration you gave to the items that I submitted for and I appreciate your work. Thank you.

181
00:52:39.119 --> 00:52:56.400
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I motion carries. Time 10:56 a.m. question. Okay. High