In a letter to Wicked Local, resident Jane Hanser calls for an end to Newton’s Traffic Council saying the “approach gets in the way of safety.”
[All] changes in safety or traffic must be citizen-initiated and must go through the Traffic Council, a body which meets only one night each month (that is, only 11 times per year) to deal with all of Newton’s requests for traffic and safety improvements. The current situation hamstrings the City Departments that are focused on safety and traffic.
I’m a bit taken aback by this piece. What sort of proposal would better serve safety? The article lacks a basic understanding of the current system and provides no alternatives.
I don’t know if the Tab has any responsibility to do basic fact checking, but the author should have done so. Yes, the traffic council agenda, unlike other aldermanic committees, is largely driven by citizen complaints, and most of the traffic council members are full-time employees (3 out of 5) but they are each capable of docketing items, as are the city Aldermen and employees. Even a quick look at the Traffic Council agendas would have shown this. With regard to the stop signs mentioned, there are federal guidelines which must be met, traffic counts must be taken, etc. Do all of these 14 intersections meet the warrants? If so, surely an alderman could docket an item to address such a serious oversight.
I disagree with Adam [above], and agree with Jane Hansen. There is too much bureaucracy in traffic control, and the process badly needs to be streamlined. Case in point…
I travel to and from a gym in Waltham, late at night 6-7 nights per week. I follow Walnut Street and cross over Washington Street in Newtonville. The light at that intersection changes to a 4-way flashing red, at 11:00 pm every night.
During the six or seven months I’ve been following that route, I have seen [literally] dozens of cars run right through the flashing red on Washington Street without even slowing down. There are a couple of reasons I believe that a flashing red at this particular intersection is ineffective, and those reasons contribute to the problem. I’ll save time here, and leave those for the traffic engineers to figure out…
After observing the problem during the first couple of weeks I was taking this route, I notified Alderman Ciccone, the Chair of Public Safety and Transportation, via email. Alderman Ciccone was quick to look into the situation with the 4-way flashing red light, responded to me within 24 hours, and acknowledged the danger. As he explained it, neither he nor his committee had the power to change the 4-way flash [after 11pm] back to it’s full operating mode. Apparently the light is set on 4-way flash, as a cost saving measure.
This is an example of the City of Newton playing Russian Roulette with the driving public, in an effort to pinch a few pennies. Our elected officials are not empowered to deal with such a dangerous situation in an expedient way. It would be simple to restore the light to full operating mode after 11pm, but the bureaucracy associated with such a change leaves this extremely dangerous situation in place.
Get rid of the Traffic Council. Let the City Departments do their job.
Mike, are actually taking issue with something I said regarding the facts in the letter, or are we just talking to the title of the letter? I don’t see the merit in bashing traffic council without looking at the true scope and procedures involved.
You raise an interesting example, but you seem to suggest that the timing of lights is outside all existing committees, including traffic council, and already in the hands of the DPW. How would abolishing Traffic Council address your problem? And if citizens are truly unhappy with the way a safety issue is being handled, isn’t that exactly what Ald Ciccone’s committee is there to discuss? Aren’t you asking for more bureaucracy and oversight on this issue, not less? I just don’t see the logic in what you’re saying.
On the light in Newtonville only:
I second that it should be a full light. And it seems to be a favorite spot of the police to pull folks over who violate the current light…
I haven’t seen too many violators, but how much can it actually save the city? And why that light and not all the others on Washington?
I believe abolishing the Traffic Council would allow the City to make traffic changes system-wide, instead of on a case by case basis, ie a city-wide parking policies. The Traffic Council could be changed into an appeals traffic council, with the overall traffic decisions made by the City’s transportation engineers, planning dept., etc. and appeals decided by the Aldermen and traffic engineer.
Why this could be good – when 1 residential street changes to no parking or resident only parking, the cars trying to park just move over a street or 2 – moving, not solving the problem. Ditto with stop signs, they can push traffic off one street, onto another street.
I think Lucia is on the right track but not sure if it means that the Traffic Council needs to be abolished. (Having spoken at a few recent meetings they may be surprised that I would say this). I do think the problem is that they act too locally. This may be that they have not been granted the right tools to look at resolving the bigger picture issues. For those following the Walnut St parking in the Highlands, we are hearing that the next set of streets will be asking for parking restrictions.
I do know that the Traffic Council is adapting policies to cover most of there actions which seems to be a good direction. Perhaps policy can cover many issues like those of lights and stop signs referenced so far and the Council can work on the exceptions.
Hi Folks,
Mr. Striar has most of it right. The Transportation Department of Newton’s DPW is working to make all of the (City of Newton) lights to function all of the time. They control the lights which are owned by the city. The state also owns lights which the city has no juristiction, (Needham St, Route 9, Centre Ave Etc)
There is an object which looks like a camera on the top of the light at Walnut and Washington St intersection. This is part of the process of making this light fully functional because it will be able to see a vehicle oncoming and change the light. The traffic lights flashing was a cost decision years ago but because of technology and more efficient bulbs it has been told to me this is not the case anymore, it is actually cheaper to have traffic lights fully functional.
I will contact Clint in the morning and fnd out what the time frame is for the light to be fully functional. As Mr. Striar stated, this is a very dangerous situation which I will follow up with tomorrow.
Jay Ciccone
Alderman Ciccone: Appreciate your participation here. Come back often.
Adam– Here’s my logic… Give me credit for a moment and assume the specific issue at Walnut and Washington I related is accurate. [You can check out the situation for yourself any night after 11pm. It’s enough of a problem that the police often have a cruiser there after 11pm. Of course that’s great for writing tickets, but it’s not going to do a darn thing to improve the safety of that intersection].
So, I notice this problem. Which is a serious enough problem that it could easily result in a fatal accident. And I contact an elected alderman who is the Chairman of the Public Safety and Transportation Committee. He looks into the situation. Responds quickly. Concurs with the problem. Yet, due to excessive, systemic bureaucracy, he is unable to actually correct the problem or effectuate a solution.
Now, you can say that’s not the Traffic Commission’s fault. And you might even be right about that. But it is indicative of a larger, inherent problem with city government. Layers of bureaucracy cost time and money, result in a lack of action and accountability, and undermine public confidence in the effectiveness of local government.
When you have a clearly dangerous situation like the one I identified at Walnut and Washington, there must be an authorized individual to correct the problem. Not an authorized Commission. Not an authorized Committee. An authorized individual who can drive to the intersection, see the problem, and flip the darn switch to let the traffic light in question operate as traffic lights at major intersections were intended to… Green, yellow, red.
Seriously, how many people does it take to flip a switch?
@Alderman Ciccone– I posted my the last note above while you were apparently posting yours. I want to thank you again for your courtesy and very prompt initial response. I sincerely appreciate your sticking with this issue and trying to get it resolved. My frustration is with the process. It is certainly not with you. I am actually quite reassured knowing there is someone in local government who cuts through the red tape and sees things through, particularly when they concern public safety. Thank you again for your efforts.
Mike
Mike, I get it, I just don’t see how your issue has anything at all to do with traffic council. You still seem to be suggesting that some bureaucracy was in the way preventing resolution of your problem or that one official is not enabled to repair or change traffic signal equipment, and that doesn’t seem to be true. You asked an elected official, the chair of the Public Safety and Transportation committee to look into an issue for you, and he did. You could have called city hall customer service too, I suppose, and gone straight to the DPW which manages the lights.
Lucia suggests that decisions be made
Read more: http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2012/06/hansen-abolish-newtons-traffic-council/#ixzz1yCBbhbpY
Lucia, what you suggest sounds a lot like Traffic Council, but with more policies, without the public hearings and perhaps without the two non-staff members., except in case of appeal. Does that seem like a fair characterization? That would seem to save time, but provide less transparency into the decision making process. Did you mean to leave out public safety officials from the decision making process? Traffic Council currently involves one member of the NPD.
The writer’s name is Jane Hanser, not Hansen.
Adam– I contacted Alderman Ciccone months ago. He responded within 24 hours. Recognized the problem immediately. Stayed on top of it all this time. Did his best to assure the public’s safety. Yet, even with his effort, a very simple [and very dangerous] situation has yet to be rectified.
Alderman Ciccone is Chairman of the Public Safety and Transportation Committee. I believe he’s a former police officer. He has earned the trust and support of Newton residents. But he still has to spend months dealing with procedural bureaucracy to get corrective action. I can’t speak for the Alderman, but I do have a sense of his commitment to public safety. And I’d be willing to bet he would have corrected this problem on Day 1 if he was empowered to do so.
I know that I’m minimizing the work of the Traffic Council by focusing on this one situation at Walnut and Washington. But what’s clear to me is that the system of determining traffic controls is ineffective. For example; the Traffic Council recently spent a tremendous amount of time discussing parking along Walnut Street in the Highlands. No question a worthy debate. But at the same time this dangerous situation in Newtonville isn’t even on their radar screen. At the very least that raises questions about priorities. I think it also raises much more important questions, about who should be in charge of public safety when it comes to traffic controls. To my mind, the fewer people the better. This process needs to be streamlined, and it needs more individual accountability.
The frustration expressed in the letter totally resonates. I’ve heard it in so many forms from many many residents. That this one targets the Traffic Council is not surprising. After all, the TC is out there facing the public. The car traffic situation in our city is a major problem and I suppose it is natural to lash out at the frontline … the traffic officers, the traffic council … etc.
To me, the culprits are drivers who have come to expect the world to accommodate them and their vehicles rather than they having the responsibility to navigate their vehicles in the world.
I am in favor of reviewing our overall attitude and approach to automobile travel. Why isn’t driver’s education required of ALL license applicants (not just junior drivers)? Why isn’t there a required reflex and situational “check up” on drivers on a periodic basis? As cars get bigger, they are both more useful and more dangerous. Is not the safety of the public worth making sure the operators of such powerful tools remain qualified to do so? Am I touching on a taboo subject? Has driving a car become a “right” for which we are willing to sacrifice lives in order to preserve?
The fact is, there are not enough signs, barriers or signals that can be put up that will protect us from drivers who disregard their responsibility when operating a highly dangerous piece of machinery known as an automobile.
Creaing rules and regulations to address very specific situation that have acceptable reasons NOT to be followed will simply result in more people getting comfortable with choosing when and when not to follow rules. We need to be more judicious about what restrictions we wish to put out there, but then we need to be MUCH more attentive to enforcing those that we do have. Most importantly, we need to remind DRIVERS what their responsibilites are.
Our current regulatory scheme establishes a Traffic Council to hear petitions for things like stop signs, parking restrictions, truck exclusions, speed limits, pedestrian and traffic lights, etc., which makes decisions that may be appealed to the Board of Aldermen. Affected residents and neighbors are notified of a petition which may affect them. Members of the Traffic Council include the City transportation planner, transportation engineer, a traffic bureau representation of the Newton Police Department, and the chair of the Public Safety & Transportation Committee (Ald. Ciccone).
The Traffic Council provides due process to those who will be affected by a traffic or parking regulation, allowing for a hearing, decision and appeal that are all part of a public process. If this were not so, decisions about all of the above regulations would be made in a non-transparent way without notice to the community. The only point at which residents would become aware that a parking restriction has gone into affect, for example, is when a “no parking” sign goes up or they get a ticket for parking in front of their house where they have been parking for many years. The transparency of Traffic Council, versus a purely administrative decision, ensures notice to the public of prospective changes before they occur so that the public can weigh in on whether a change is desirable. The process may take longer, but democracy and due process almost always slow down the wheels of government.
I fully appreciate the desire for a streamlined process. As chair of the Land Use committee, I have gone out of my way to expedite the decisionmaking process, while striving to ensure that everyone who is affected by a special permit has a chance to review and comment on the petition. It is sometimes arduous, labor intensive, and time-consuming, but it ensures that everyone gets their “day in court.” And I would not have it any other way. As an alderman who has filed a number of petitions with the Traffic Council on behalf of constituents over the past 9 years, I have learned that there are always two or more sides to every issue and that the “obvious solution” to a problem is not always the right one. The people who live on a street, and know every tree root and crack in the sidewalk, every blind spot on a turn, what it is like not to be able to get in or out of their own driveways because there live on a narrow street with cars parked on both side, and walk their children to school and cross busy streets with them, ought to have a fair, open and public process whereby they can have their concerns addressed.
The example Mike Striar cites is exactly why we need a public process for making important public safety decisions. An administrative decision that may have made sense years ago from a cost saving perspective is no longer necessary or prudent. It is a citywide policy that I have to believe the Board of Aldermen can address with a docket item for discussion in Ald. Ciccone’s committee. As a police officer, Jay Ciccone has a unique understanding of public safety issues and, IMHO, has been an asset to both the Traffic Council and the Board of Aldermen. The LAST thing I want to do is to eliminate the Traffic Council without having a public decisionmaking process that ensures due process for people who will be affected by traffic and parking regulations.
Not for nothing, but the basic premise of the letter to the editor is that the police and traffic personnel lack authority to protect public safety by imposing regulations. That is patently untrue. The police do have the authority to implement temporary measures in the interest of public safety, pending review in the Traffic Council.
The author is also misinformed about the ability of city staff and the police to initiate site specific changes. A cursory review of the most recent Traffic Council agenda clearly shows that department heads, the transportation planners and the police can file petitions as well.
@Ted– Speaking only to the specific example I cited, and not to the letter that prompted this thread. It does not take a Traffic Council to flip a switch on a traffic control box, in order to make a traffic light fully functional. The situation I referred to is a clear and present danger. We can streamline the process all we want, and I certainly support that. But there’s no legislating common sense. Everyone seems to agree that the post 11pm, 4-way flashing red at Walnut and Washington is dangerous. The police know it’s dangerous, and that’s why they’ve started monitoring the intersection more often at that time of night. Have any of those officers ever filed a petition to change it? I don’t even think the Traffic Council was aware of it. So what purpose do they really serve? One more layer of bureaucracy between safety and common sense. Just my opinion.
@Greer– Some great comments. I wonder why driver’s training is so easy that even a caveman can pass it. Skid School should be a driver’s license requirement. I’ve insisted my kids attend Skid School before I ever handed them the keys to the car.
Hi Again Folks,
I received a voice mail from Clint (Director of Transportation DPW) this morning regarding the light at Washington and Walnut as well as the other lights the city owns. They are in the process of changing them all to operate fully 24/7 , but as Clint described in his message he didn’t want to commit on a specific date for which this would happen. He did say 3-6 months would most likely be the time frame for when the change would occur.
I do know Jim Danila who works under Clint is leaving at the end of the month for another employment opportunity and the staff will be short again. I’m hoping this position can be filled in a timely manner but whoever does come in they have some pretty big shoes to fill. Jim has been an asset to the city and I hate to see him go. He has worked so hard and has been so dedicated to our community………tough to find a guy like him these days.
I know this is a frustrating situation for the time it is taking and I am going to follow up with Clint to see if there is anything which could be done to speed up this process. I don’t know how this falls into the priority level with the DPW but I will find out from Clint and explain this should be done just as soon as possible. I am not trying to make excuses for anyone but I do know they have a ton of work to do and to be shorthanded over the summer isn’t going to help. I will do everything I can to see this gets to the top of the priority list and hopefully we can see the lights fully functional just as soon as possible.
Not the best news but I just wanted to keep everyone informed of the situation.
All my best,
Jay Ciccone
Alderman Ciccone:
Thanks for the follow and update. Can you or anyone else familiar with this explain in laypersons terms what’s involved in changing this?
Is it a matter of logging onto a computer program and changing some code? Does a truck have to go out and make changes on site? Is there rewiring or new hardware or software required? Does it involve special training? An outside contractor?
I ask because understanding if this is a eight-minute task or an 80-hour task or an eight-week task., would go a long way in explaining why it needs to take three to six months to schedule and accomplish.
Hi Greg,
I spoke with Clint and it’s work which is contracted out. As far as hardware goes, it’s in place so the process is started. It has several events which take place before being operational. Electricians are also part of this procedure. I am going to gather more information as to the whole process before I make anymore comments because to be honest, I don’t have the answers and have to go to the professionals to get more information. For instance I don’t know if the contractor does all the hardware on each signal first or is capable to do one signal at a time and make it fully functional. My guess is it’s more cost effective to have each part of the process done and then on to the next. First install the device, then electricians for their part of the work and then software to as you said “flick the switch. I want to be clear, that is my guess. I am very ignorant to this process which is why I am reaching out to find the answers.
My other concern has nothing to do with the lights but with drivers bad habits. I don’t know if a functional light will make any difference if they are running the red light anyway. Maybe with a full red light rather than a flashing light their habits will change. I don’t have a crystal ball to look into and give me that answer so only time will tell. I’m hoping with the work which is being done will make traveling safer throughout the city. If any of you folks see this becoming an issue anywhere in the city, please call the police. If it is a problem you see regularly let the police know so they can take appropriate action. Sometimes if people are hit in the pocket with a fine for some reason they change their own bad driving habits, the others who don’t usually buy sneakers a little more often. Once I can obtain more information, i’ll be back.
Thanks,
Jay Ciccone
So to sum up, for this particular issue, it seems there was no committee in the way. The DPW owned the issue and it was a task, possibly one already in progress. Mike’s problem may have been more about customer service (i.e. how to report the problem, how to get status) What’s the right answer? Call 311? Call your alderman? Call the police? Complain on a blog?
Signal timing changes do not need Traffic Council approval. It’s important to clear up these misconceptions, since that’s what started this thread. I think it would help if the city had a simple web site for traffic council explaining what it does and why.
There are lots of traffic lights throughout the city that flash 4-way red, late at night. The one at Walnut and Washington is the only one I’ve noticed that drivers frequently run through without so much as slowing down. I’ve seen it happen more than two dozen times in the 6 months or so I’ve been taking that route.
Yes, drivers need to be more cautious. No one should go breezing through a flashing red light. But the fact that this happens so frequently at that particular intersection, indicates to me that other things besides driver attentiveness are involved. I’m not a traffic expert, but I could list several obvious factors that make this intersection unique, and should make it ineligible for a 4-way flashing red. I won’t bother getting into those details.
But it does bother me that everyone who is familiar with this situation recognizes the danger, yet no one is individually empowered to correct the problem before some tragedy happens there. I don’t particularly care who it is. It could be Mayor Warren. It could be Alderman Ciccone. It could be the head of the DPW. Or it could be a police officer. I would trust any of them to assess this kind of hazardous situation and take corrective action on the spot. If there were an accident there tonight, the city would be out there fixing the problem first thing tomorrow morning. Why wait for the accident?
Sorry, Adam, I don’t agree. They are the TRAFFIC COUNCIL. This is a TRAFFIC issue. The fact that they’re not dealing with it tells me all I need to know about their priorities and effectiveness. In my opinion, this city has too many commissions and committees. What we need is more action and accountability.
Mike, you can keep saying that, but it’s simply not true. The traffic engineer is empowered to do exactly this, and he is exercising this power. It’s an administrative matter in the executive department, and the chain of command goes right to the Mayor. We’ve been fortunate to have an excellent traffic engineer working through years of backlogged problems. It’s unfortunate we’re losing him.
The responsibilities of the Traffic Council are spelled out in the city charter, Article II, section 19-26. They include signage and creating traffic controls, but not programming or maintaining them. The DPW may take on issues, or they may be reported by the police or other city workers, or concerned citizens like yourself calling city hall, or perhaps even by some elected oficial. As for accountability, we have 24 aldermen and so many committees for oversight. If the issue were not being dealt with, Alderman Ciccone could certainly docket an item for discussion on his committee.
Adam– The responsibilities for the aldermen are spelled out in the City Charter as well. Yet I think it’s fair to say the prevailing opinion is there are too many alderman. The reason people think there are too many aldermen is that they want a lean, accountable city government. The redundancy involved with having 24 alderman AND a Traffic Council runs counter to that rationale, and [in my opinion] conflicts with what is in the best interest of Newton. Again, too many commissions, committees, councils, etc. Not enough action or accountability.
You keep referencing the big picture of what the Traffic Council is supposed to do. I suggest that we’d be better served by the aldermen performing their function. Just my opinion, but I think that traffic is one of the things citizens expect their aldermen to deal with.
Regarding the specific situation at Walnut and Washington… What better example could there be that the system as currently constructed is failing to address critical issues of traffic safety? If the Traffic Council is not paying attention to issues that present an immediate public danger, then what real purpose do they serve?
You have somehow interpreted the comments from Alderman Ciccone as indicative of one persons ability to fix the problem I have addressed. You seem to feel the “traffic engineer” has such power. Perhaps you can identify that person by name, so we’ll all know exactly who is to blame when the inevitable accident happens at Walnut and Washington? What I took from Alderman Ciccone’s comments is that there is no individual responsible, and a solution that’s already been determined has been tied up in city bureaucracy. I’ll bet you a Coke that this problem could be solved [at least temporarily] by one person in less than 15 minutes. The reason that’s not happening, is because there are too many people involved in traffic decisions, and a complete lack of accountability.
Traffic Council is not there to monitor traffic or perform maintenance tasks. Operations is the responsibility of the DPW. Perhaps Traffic Council is poorly named. It’s there to change regulations. Would it help if it were called the Parking and Traffic Regulations Council? Aldermen provide useful input (there is one on the committee) but have neither the training nor the responsibility to do this, which is why there’s also a planner, a traffic engineer, and a police officer on the committee. I think it’s a very good thing that issues like these are made by professionals and not in a purely political setting.
I think you may be confusing the speed at which Ald. Ciccone’s can get status information with the process to get something fixed. Would it be a good way to run the city if every resident bombarded the already busy traffic engineer directly? I doubt it. There’s a problem reporting system. If it’s not working, then it should be improved. He mentioned the traffic engineer by name in a previous post. If you think Alderman Ciccone said that nobody in the city is responsible for operations of traffic signals in this city, I think you misunderstood. Perhaps you should check with him.
I’ve been told that reprogramming signals is non-trivial. As for your 15 minute task, I’ll take on your bet. A cold drink would be nice right now.
Adam– I think the crux of our dispute harkens back to that old joke… How many [fill in the blank] does it take to screw in a light bulb? In general, I think we have too many people involved in decision making processes. Newton has the largest legislative branch in the Commonwealth, next to Beacon Hill. We also have a Strong Mayor form of government. We have sufficient powers built into the system, and enough intellect and expertise among those elected officials to keep the city in good running order. When we add additional committees, commissions, councils and panels, things become unwieldy, and it diminishes accountability among those who have been elected to perform.
A good example of this was the recent decision by the Parks and Recreation Commission banning swimming at Crystal Lake. A body of appointed members makes a decision that effects hundreds of citizens, who have no electoral recourse to express their dissatisfaction.
I think I’ve given you good reason to question [at the very least] the priorities of the Traffic Council. The example I’ve cited indicates [at least to me] that drivers in this city are being put at risk because of our cumbersome and ill defined methods of dealing with traffic control issues. We are both free to disagree with each other on any of those points.
Regarding how long it would take someone to reset the traffic light at Walnut and Washington so that it remains fully operational after 11pm… You wrote that Alderman Ciccone identified the individual responsible for making that change. I’ve gone back and reread his comments. I see where he’s identified “Clint [Director of Transportation DPW]” as someone with knowledge of this situation. But if you read the alderman’s comments again, you’ll see he stops short of placing the responsibility for the change on any individual, including Clint.
Here’s how we can resolve our high stakes wager of a Coke. [But let’s be clear, we are not talking about a 16oz. Big Gulp, because I’m sure that would trigger some sort of action from Newton’s Council on Politically Correct Behavior]. You get Clint to meet the two of us at the intersection of Washington and Walnut anytime in the next week, and explain the process of temporarily changing that traffic light to full function mode. I will personally pay the city employee or contractor of his choice to make that change immediately. That way you can prove your contention that the current system of determining traffic controls actually works. We can actually fix this problem so no one gets killed. And you and Clint can both have a Coke on me.
I’m reachable anytime… 617-834-2222
Only recently was I made aware of this blog thread, so I am commenting almost two months after this post was published. Greg, our letter does not recommend the abolishment of the Traffic Council. The title of the blog post is misleading. I will repeat here some of our comments:
“The current method for fixing traffic and safety problems in Newton is in desperate need of repair…. Most of the Traffic Council’s members are dedicated full-time employees for the City, yet the mechanism of the Traffic Council ties their hands. They should be able to initiate changes they deem necessary for public safety, while maintaining an appropriate mechanism for input by residents.”
Nowhere did we call for the absolute abolishment of the Traffic Council. Not only did we not criticize or call into question the good intentions of members of the TC but in fact we did – and believe – the opposite. Would that the Board of Aldermen be open to modifying some of the processes of the TC itself regarding the addition or removal of stop signs and traffic signals, we would not oppose that in the least. As people who live in Newton, drive, bike and jog in Newton, our concern is a process that is designed to promote safety – before disaster strikes. There is no system that is flawless and experience should help u, as a City, come together to make wise improvements.
Perhaps, Ted, you could provide a working link to City Charter, Article II, section 19-26, for all to read.
Jane,
What, specifically, do you propose to improve Traffic Council?
Traffic Council members can and do docket items all the time. Take a look and see for yourself.
Which process did you have in mind? Do you mean the process for filing such items to be considered and/or appealed? Does it take too long to hold public hearings? Is the bar too high / too low to hear items? Should certain decisions be made without public input to lighten the burden? If you mean the criteria used to make these decisions, that’s not part of the city charter or arbitrary choices made by the council; they’re national standards. Are these standards not being applied properly? Perhaps this information is not readily available to petitioners?
Adam,
Thanks for opening a dialogue about this.
Which process did you have in mind?
I would like the City to be able to install stop signs along the 13 intersections that we identified simply with the recommendation of the Engineering Department. I would like to see other changes as well.
Do you mean the process for filing such items to be considered and/or appealed? Does it take too long to hold public hearings?
I’ll try to do this: If it only took a long time that would be one thing. But certain things never ever get resolved. First, meeting 11 times per year is simply not enough. This is a large city with 275 miles of public streets, more than Cambridge. A council meeting 11 evenings per year to deal satisfactorily with all the issues delegated to the TC is insufficient. I have read many TC reports and an item is brought up, saved for the next meeting one month later for further study, then saved again for the next meeting for more facts, and then deferred until later when more information is available. And then it dies, either because there’s a huge summer hiatus – two months between the last meeting of one year and the first of another – or because the members of the TC change, aldermen docketing items come and go, or there are other docket items waiting, waiting, and the old ones get tired, the TC waits for input from abutters that they never received, the results are the same. What to do about the stop lines at Lowell Avenue is one example. If the TC were kept, I would recommend it meeting twice/month, 12 times per year. It simply must be able to keep up with the demands of SAFETY in a city the size of ours.
Since I wrote the article and read the blog responses, I did learn that individual aldermen can docket items. This is something, of course. But take the item that I raised in my letter – the issue of the 13 nonexistent stop signs along the Carriage Road, which concerns me greatly. First, I would have to find a group of alderman who want to docket the placement of stop signs and follow that through, and this includes several different wards. (I am actually in the process of doing this now.) But where there is a systematic need, it should be handled systematically, and not like this. Engineering has already acknowledged the importance of placing the stop signs but they must also go through the TC process.
But go further: Items must be docketed one by one; the 13 streets along the Carriage Road in need of stop signs can not be batched as one item. So whether it’s aldermen or Engineering rep on the TC or the Chief of Police for that matter, there would have to be 13 separate docketed items for the 13 separate intersections that need a stop sign before the Carriage Road. If I’m going to ask my ward alderman to docket 13 separate items, I also need to get the alderman from every ward along the Carriage Path willing to do the same. It’s a poor way to run a city. It’s enough to frustrate and dissuade many from wanting to be involved.
It’s important for there to be a consistent set of expectations when driving, walking, bicycling, etc. But because items are brought up one at a time before the TC, and the composition of the TC is constantly changing, pedestrians and drivers do not always have a consistent set of expectations. My and my husband’s report on safety along the Carriage Road showed just what pedestrians, bicyclists, runners and drivers are up against as they travel from one intersection to another.
Oh, yes, the chief of police can also docket an item. But does he want to go through this process? I have spoken to police about particularly dangerous intersections and they have also expressed frustration going through this process. They don’t want to do it, until there is an accident.
Is the bar too high / too low to hear items? I know aldermen who are frustrated that all items have an equal weight and that the process is so slow. I know aldermen who have a vision for Newton and for safety and who know that with the process being as it is, the vision is – a vision. The City with the TAC passed recommendations for safety and a bicycle safety network, and yet so much of this is being stopped or bottlenecked at the level of the Traffic Council.
Should certain decisions be made without public input to lighten the burden? Yes. The example of the 13 non-existent traffic signs is a good example. The goal is not to lighten the burden; the goal is to have a process in the City that makes safety a priority.
If you mean the criteria used to make these decisions, that’s not part of the city charter or arbitrary choices made by the council; they’re national standards. Are these standards not being applied properly? There are streets such as Hazleton that intersect the Carriage Road, a road with heavy pedestrian use, that are dead end streets with 4-6 homes on them that have a stop sign before the Carriage Road; there are others such as Commonwealth Park that are thru-streets that are heavily used that have none before the Carriage Road. What engineering standards is the City applying here?
Perhaps this information is not readily available to petitioners? Perhaps and perhaps not. The TC when it was created solved some problems, but as with life, each solution has its own problems. It’s time that, in the interest of public safety, changes to the City Charter regulating the TC need to be made.
I hope this answers a few of your questions.
Currently, there is an added problem, which is that the city lost its Traffic Engineer and Transportation Engineer over the summer. It remains to be seen what impact this will have.
The composition of traffic council has been stable as far as I can tell, but people do change jobs, the Alderman seat on TC may change each election, and people sometimes people can’t make the meeting and send a back up.
Items on the docket are always resolved, though perhaps not to the satisfaction of the petitioner. The council may choose “no action necessary” based on their judgement or if something is beyond their purview, and they often do, but with full discussion. I’ve never seen an item just die for lack of interest.
The fact that there’s “due process” for each and every stop sign and traffic space may very well be at the heart of the problem. As long as there is, there are citizens who would complain if any public meetings were held over the summer, perhaps explaining why there are often no summer meetings of TC or other committees.
To be clear, the Aldermen are the ones behind the process. They are the ones who continue to demand oversight and a public hearing on each and every stop sign and parking space in the city. Traffic Council was created to shift this burden, but the Aldermen did not relinquish control, as there is an appeals process and an Alderman seated on TC. Indeed, in page 11 (Governance/Traffic Council) the TAC recommends that the board play less of a role in items regarding traffic safety and that the Aldermen should set a higher bar for appeals. It would still be many of the city employees on the traffic council who would make such decisions, in consultation with each other, based on the same engineering and guidelines, just without the due process and bureaucracy of public meetings on each and every item. That could lessen the burden on these employees and enable them to do more, eliminate much of the backlog and hopefully reduce the politics in the process. Think that’s a good idea? Poll your Aldermen and see if they agree. They have to approve such changes, not the TC.
Regarding your request for Commonwealth Ave, I don’t know of any reason why you couldn’t file a single item with all the stop signs, especially if they’re similar in traffic patterns. Traffic council would end up doing so for expediency in the end anyway. I also am not aware of any restrictions on which Aldermen or how many Aldermen must sign an item. One might be all you need.
A reasonable question to ask when your item comes before the council.
Sometimes public process is good. There ought to be a threshold to changing traffic controls. It’s not something that should be taken lightly.
Adam,
I appreciate your optimism but it’s really not so easy and it’s really not so expedient. It’s not designed to be expedient.
How many of the TAG recommendations have come to fruition? And what’s the hold up?
Jane, lots is happening with the TAC recommendations, some long-term, some short-term such as changes in the executive branch. Each item has its own set of hurdles . Some items require board approval.
Adam and Ted,
A lot of things are getting stuck and they’re getting stuck because of administrative issues. Let’s look at what you wrote: Items on the docket are always resolved, though perhaps not to the satisfaction of the petitioner. The council may choose “no action necessary” based on their judgement or if something is beyond their purview, and they often do, but with full discussion. I’ve never seen an item just die for lack of interest.
The issue surrounding stop lines along Lowell Avenue has had no resolution. The TC dealt with it in 2010, in 2011, and it’s now late 2012. In my husband’s and my report, on this past Newton Serves! day we took our photos along our bike ride along the Carriage Road, we saw, at that very intersection, and were able to take a photo of one car heading south on Lowell whose driver was so confused as to where to stop that the driver literally stopped in the middle of the intersection. At the same time along the CP there was a mother and her children on bicycles who wanted to cross Lowell and had a green light and was so confused trying to navigate the intersection because of the one car stuck in the middle, going nowhere. This issue has to this day not been resolved and there is no current process to resolve it. And yet I have a rather simple and beautiful solution that will achieve two goals: It will bring safety to Lowell St/Comm Ave intersection and it will fulfill the goal of consistent expectations.
The issue of safety along the Carriage Road also came up in the TC in 2010 and was just dropped in the most creative way. When it came up, the decision was made to wait until the Transportation Advisory Committee, which was meeting in 2011, dealt with it and made recommendations . But the TAC never did deal with safety along the CR because it was too specific: The Mayor didn’t want to deal with specific places in the TAC, just general principles. So it’s now late 2012 and it’s gone completely from the TC discussion.
By the way, Ted, why don’t you stand with my husband and me and offer to docket these 13 items – the 13 cross streets that do not have stop signs before the Carriage Road? When do you want to meet and go over this? Adam is proposing that it should be easy to find an alderman who wants to docket these items. How about it?
Jane, I don’t believe the TAC was ever meant to deal with specific design issues. Where did you get that information? Or was there some policy that the TAC was working on which was relevant to the carriage road design?
And just curious, what was the item number or hearing date for Lowell Street? Line painting and positioning typically isn’t a traffic council thing. That’s something the DPW does.
According to the meeting report TC28-10 was approved to add a turn restriction (traffic council does this) and the rest was up to the DPW.
Adam,
The turn restriction doesn’t solve the problem. Neighbors don’t like the turn restriction, it forces them to turn right, and the stop lines are still up at the Commonwealth Avenue intersection, not behind the Carriage Path intersection, which is where it wold need to be in order to not obstruct walkers, bicyclists and runners who are using the Carriage Road recreationally. It is also (almost) the only intersection along the Carriage Road where the stop lines are south of the Carriage Road. This is what we are talking about when we discuss the lack of consistency, and the lack of safety and inconsistent expectations for motorists and recreational users of the CR.
As I’ve written, it is a problem and the problem has not been resolved.
Adam,
This is a good example of how the TC parses things up so that situations in need of attention are not dealt with sufficiently. Solving the problem with Lowell and many other intersections involves possibly adding traffic signals, possibly adding stop signs, and definitely the placement and positioning of stop lines. The placement of stop lines cannot be dealt with out of context of a larger and more satisfying solution. The Department of Engineering could deal with all these issues in one design plan, but cannot: They have to bring everything to TC because only the TC can approve the placement or removal of traffic signals and stop signs. This is why everything ultimately ends up going through TC, and why really important decisions are either slow to be made or are not made at all, or are made piecemeal and thus not as well as they could – and should – be, and certainly not as well as the people living in, working in, driving through Newton deserve.
I’m really not familiar with the layout or history on this, so I’m sorry if my comments are out of context. From the report, it did sound like TC had approved all actions needed for DPW to fulfill a particular plan. The was a caveat, however, that this project would cost real money and would have to be prioritized with everything else the DPW must do. Traffic council doesn’t get to manage funding or resources and is probably not the gating factor. Too bad the neighborhood doesn’t like the turn restriction Jim presented. Was the neighborhood notified and represented at the meeting?
Adam,
Your comments are not out of context; the dialogue is respectful and I am enjoying it and think it is fruitful. It will be even more fruitful if Alderman Hess-Mahan agrees to get on board with me and docket these items before the TC, since he’s the one who pointed out that all I have to do is to get an alderman to docket items for me.
There really is no “plan”. The TC handles matters as they come up. I also don’t like the turn restriction; it doesn’t solve a thing and vehicles don’t obey it anyway. (As my we were there, we saw one driver go straight through it and continue on the CR west of Lowell. This happens frequently.) I described above the fiasco that occurred at that intersection just as we were there and taking photos of it; and that sort of thing happens regularly. Do you bike or run along the Carriage Road? Are you one of the thousands of families who take recreational walks along it, or who walk your dog along it? Having the stop lines south of the Carriage Road are a recipe for danger. Thousands of people run and bike across that intersection and as it is now, people are forced to run or bike or walk through a line of motorized vehicles.
And you raise the next good point: That the TC is only administrative; they have no funding source. so matters are approved in theory and there is no money for them. What a waste of everybody’s time! This is another large problem with all matters having to go through the Traffic Council.
Adam, look at the Carriage Road from the point of view of a motorist or of a runner or an elderly person trying to cross the street or a bunch of children trying to bicycle down it. Newly placed signs around Grant Street require all bicyclists to use the Carriage Road. But the City has not done anything to make sure that the Carriage Road is safe for them. The Carriage Road is a hodgepodge of intersections, sometimes cyclists end up at a sudden curb, sometimes (like Lowell) they have to maneuver through a line of stopped vehicles, sometimes they encounter a separate traffic signal (such as before Chestnut Street), sometimes the Carriage Road feeds back into the main Commonwealth Avenue…. and often there are no stop signs protecting them from being hit by southbound vehicles on cross streets. The fact is that the TC is not equipped to deal with this extended safety hazard.
Thanks.
Uh huh. Tell me again how Newton is well served by a Traffic Council AND an Aldermanic Public Safety and Transportation Committee? Collectively, they are a dysfunctional mess, and no one is looking after the safety of motorists or pedestrians in an effective way.
Here’s what I saw at at the stroke of midnight on September 12th…
I’ve previously and repeatedly called attention to the intersection of Washington and Walnut, where the traffic light is programmed to switch from its normal function to a four way flashing red, after 11pm.
On my way home from the gym last night I was driving south on Walnut. As I approached Washington Street I noticed the police cruiser that frequently monitors that intersection parked on the side of the road. As I came to the required stop on Walnut, I was free to travel into the intersection which had no other traffic. But I noticed a car traveling at a fairly high rate of speed heading west on Washington and approaching the intersection. Rather than engage the intersection myself, I waited to make sure the approaching vehicle was actually going to stop. It didn’t. It sped right through the flashing red light like it wasn’t even there. If I had entered the intersection [as was my legal right], it would have resulted in a horrific accident.
Fortunately the police cruiser saw the whole thing, pursued the car, and presumably cited the driver.
I’ve now seen this same type of incident more than two dozen times at that intersection over the past several months. This was the only time I’ve seen a driver get pulled over for running the flashing red light.
The Traffic Council and Public Safety and Transportation Committee need to stop playing Russian Roulette with the lives of motorists in Newton before someone gets killed. There is a simple fix for this problem. The timer on that traffic light needs to be changed, so that the light remains fully functional even after 11pm. The fact that no one on the Traffic Council or Public Safety and Transportation Committee has fixed this problem, tells me you all need to find a new line of work.
Adam, FYI, I’m not the only one recommending a modification to the work of the Traffic Council. The TAC, commissioned by Mayor Warren made the following recommendation:
“Brief Statement of Underlying Principle or Intent of Recommendation:
Many transportation‐related decisions that are made by the professional staff of Transportation and Planning departments in Massachusetts and throughout the United States are, in Newton, made by the Traffic Council. While this approach has important benefits by involving the public in such decisions, it can often slow down the process of making decisions about important transportation projects. As the Council’s web page currently notes “Due to the volume of petitions received, there is approximately a 3 to 6 month wait for requests to be heard.” The TAC therefore makes two recommendations to streamline the work of Traffic Council: that a review be conducted to see if any decisions currently within the jurisdiction of the Traffic Council should be removed (and transferred to professional staff) and that the Traffic Council increasingly seek to act through
the application of generally applicable written policies rather than on a case‐by‐case basis. The Council itself has begun to implement such a policy‐based approach through the adoption of policies such as one on requests for handicap parking spaces and the TAC believes that these efforts should be expanded and institutionalized. In addition, the TAC believes that the current appeals process – under which a single member of the Board of Alderman can appeal a decision of the Traffic Council to the full Board of Alderman – is time‐consuming and works against the goal of greater policy‐based decision making and therefore recommends changes to limit the number of appeals.”
There’s more before this paragraph and after it. You can read it in the TAC report, on p. 11, which specifically deals with the Traffic Council.
The Traffic Council’s last meeting was 07/26/2012, there is never an August meeting, and its next meeting will be 07/26/2012. That’s essential a two-month hiatus of dealing with traffic and safety concerns for our City dealing with stop signs, stop lights, and more. So think of this when considering the 3-6 month wait (according to the TC website) for matters to go before the TC either in their first appearance when they’re presented, to the end when there is a resolution, assuming that there is one. (See above.)
Oops. I really meant to un-italicize after par. 2. I’ll start again:
Adam and Ted, I’m not the only one recommending a modification to the work of the Traffic Council. The TAC, commissioned by Mayor Warren made the following recommendation:
“Subcommittee/Topic: Governance/Citywide Policy Adoption
Recommendation: Whenever possible, the executive departments with responsibility for transportation projects and transportation‐related land use decisions should act pursuant to written policies rather than on a case‐by‐case basis. In order to move to such a policy‐based approach the Transportation Team, working with the new Transportation Advisory Group, should develop a complete list of policies needed to implement all TAC recommendations and then prioritize the development of such policies.
“Brief Statement of Underlying Principle or Intent of Recommendation: Many transportation‐related decisions that are made by the professional staff of Transportation and Planning departments in Massachusetts and throughout the United States are, in Newton, made by the Traffic Council. While this approach has important benefits by involving the public in such decisions, it can often slow down the process of making decisions about important transportation projects. As the Council’s web page currently notes “Due to the volume of petitions received, there is approximately a 3 to 6 month wait for requests to be heard.” The TAC therefore makes two recommendations to streamline the work of Traffic Council: that a review be conducted to see if any decisions currently within the jurisdiction of the Traffic Council should be removed (and transferred to professional staff) and that the Traffic Council increasingly seek to act through the application of generally applicable written policies rather than on a case‐by‐case basis. The Council itself has begun to implement such a policy‐based approach through the adoption of policies such as one on requests for handicap parking spaces and the TAC believes that these efforts should be expanded and institutionalized. In addition, the TAC believes that the current appeals process – under which a single member of the Board of Alderman can appeal a decision of the Traffic Council to the full Board of Alderman – is time‐consuming and works against the goal of greater policy‐based decision making and therefore recommends changes to limit the number of appeals.”
*
There’s more after this paragraph. You can read it in <a href "http://www.http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=45361" the TAC report, on p. 11, which specifically deals with the Traffic Council.
The Traffic Council’s last meeting was 07/26/2012, there is never an August meeting, and its next meeting will be 07/26/2012. That’s essential a two-month hiatus of dealing with traffic and safety concerns for our City dealing with stop signs, stop lights, and more. So think of this when considering the 3-6 month wait (according to the TC website) for matters to go before the TC either in their first appearance when they’re presented, to the end when there is a resolution, assuming that there is one. (See above.) You can look at the current agenda of the 1st meeting after the summer break to see what I’m referring to.