HIGHWAY SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 27, 2007
A meeting of the Bedford Highway Safety Committee was held on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 in the Bedford Meeting Room, 10 Meetinghouse Road (BCTV). Present were: David Bailey (Chief of Police), Scott Wiggin (Fire Chief), Jim Stanford (Director of Public Works), Paul Roy (Councilor), Gerry Gagne (Resident), Tony Grande (Resident) and Anne Wiggin (School Traffic Coordinator). Alternates, Ken Peterson (Resident) and Michael Izbicki (Councilor) were also in attendance.
The meeting was called to order at 7:15 a.m.
Approval of minutes for the November 28, 2006 meeting. Ken Peterson had some minor corrections; page 3, 3rd paragraph from the bottom – evasive and believes the word should be “invasive”. The other correction is on page 6, 1st paragraph, line 3, “all of there” should be “all of their” and the same thing on the bottom of the page, last line. A motion was made by Gerry Gagne to approve the minutes of the last meeting, as corrected; motion seconded by Fire Chief Wiggin. Motion passed with one abstention.
Annual Organizational Meeting
Appointments to the committee are as follows:
David Bailey – Chairman
Scott Wiggin – Vice-Chairman
Joanne Fraser – Committee Secretary
A motion was made on the above appointments and all were approved unanimously.
As for the appointment for the alternates, we will wait, as there are several nominations for the Town. It is believed April 4th is the deadline date for applications.
Sub Committee Report
Proposing Tinker Road – One way from New Boston Road to Joppa Hill Road
The Highway Safety Committee heard this item back on November 28th, and at the time there was opposition for one-way from New Boston Road to Joppa Hill Road. Jim briefed the committee on this item indicating the request was by petition by a resident, Mr. Ruchin, proposing a one-way. Mr. Ruchin corrected Jim’s comment and said a meeting on site back in October with Keith Hickey, Town Manager at that time, and Michael Scanlon (Town Councilor), it was their suggestion to approve a one-way, not
Highway Safety Committee – Minutes – March 27, 2007
Page 2
him, to resolve a condition that had been discussed many times, involving encroachment on his property and flood damage. At that meeting, the best way to approach a quick fix was to make it one-way, be it temporary until we have enough land either by eminent domain or easement to widen the road. Tinker Road has 16 feet of road surface, not enough for two vehicles to travel at the same time. Mr. Ruchin said he wishes they would look at this on-site to make a better judgment and evaluation. He indicated when trucks travel the road side by side, they go over the culvert and in the wintertime compact the snow and ice, cutting off the flow of water and then the water begins to creep up his driveway, cascades downward into the apron and freezing over. He’s had water damage that cost him $10,000 in
floods back in the 1980’s. He’s petitioned for many years to look into the dust and the commercial traffic. Every year the traffic increases and the conditions get worse. Mr. Ruchin said he had requested Michael Scanlon last year to resolve the problem somehow. He went back out and indicated the best way to go is to flow the traffic one-way, cutting half of it out, bringing traffic in from New Boston Road into Joppa Hill Road. Mr. Ruchin said that Jim had mentioned about two years ago to take some of the bank down to allow the snow plows to move the snow off the culvert so it wouldn’t freeze up. That would require easements, engineering and cost. If we made it one-way as proposed, it would solve many things for him and other residents. Tinker Road is a road that goes back to the early 1900’s created for horse and wagon. All he is asking the Town is to resolve the flooding, encroachment and dust. At
the time when this was looked at and discussed with Keith Hickey, Michael Scanlon and Jim Stanford, it was there suggestion to go before the Highway Safety Committee to make a determination whether it is feasible for the health, welfare and safety of all. During the dry season whenever it rains, the dirt portion of the road tracks the dirt onto the black top, thus it appears there is no black top at all. Every year the traffic increases and once the Pulpit Road subdivision is approved with either 65 or 95 homes, he feels half of the people will travel on Tinker Road. He is looking for relief from the flooding, encroachment and damage to his property. Even if the relief is temporary until Jim can develop a plan. Looking at the road today, the Town has taken land on both sides. Mr. Ruchin said if this were acceptable with this committee, he would recommend to the Town Council to recommend the one-way from New Boston Road, it would do a number of
things for him and for the rest of the residents.
Mr. Ruchin said he wished some of the committee members had met on site. Jim informed him they did meet at the site. Jim said a sub-committee was formed at the last meeting that included, Ken Peterson, Gerry Gagne and himself and they did take a look at it. Jim indicated that as the sub-committee, they agree there are some life issues relative to the dust, but one of the things they struggled with is we are the safety committee. The last time they met they were unsure which way would be best for the one-way. Believes Mr. Ruchin was looking coming off New Boston Road one-way going toward Joppa Hill
Highway Safety Committee – Minutes – March 27, 2007
Page 3
Road. At the last meeting, the group without going out to the area, struggled with it if this would make the most sense traffic wise, thus a sub-committee was formed. Jim said they did meet and one of the items discussed should this be one-way, you are putting the traffic some place else. Concerned about that, if the traffic is put onto Joppa Hill Road, this road where it enters New Boston Road has okay sight distance at least when the foliage is off the trees, but it does not have ideal sight distance. Jim is familiar with the issues as he and Mr. Ruchin have spoken on many occasions, but as a group they didn’t feel it will solve the problem and concerned about some of the potential problems it will pause to other spots.
Mr. Ruchin said he came before this board today by virtue of a suggestion, not from him, but by the former Town Manager and Michael Scanlon and that is why he is here today.
He is looking for a simple solution.
Mr. Ruchin indicated back 10 to 12 years ago, the Town took the Joppa Hill Road/Tinker Road intersection and widened it. At that time a resident said why not make it 90 degrees and he would give the Town the land. But, it was never pursued. Mr. Ruchin said most of the traffic that flows, are the same cars that go in then go out. It will not add any more traffic until more development comes along and gives you more traffic. Again, Mr. Ruchin stressed all he is asking for is some relief.
Chief Bailey indicated to Jim Stanford there has to be something between the one-way and a complete fix. Jim said we have not found it yet. It is a narrow gravel road and we do not have the right-of-way. Some time ago, the Highway Dept. paved approximately a 100-foot section in front of Mr. Ruchin’s home, but no drainage was installed. Jim mentioned that Mr. Ruchin did set up a meeting with one of the neighbors on the corner and agreed if the Town ever did pursue widening the road at the intersection to help out with drainage, he’d be willing to speak with the Town about an easement. Jim said the problem at the moment within our roads program; there are no plans to upgrade any of the gravel roads as we are focusing all of our efforts on the paved sections. In previous years
there had been some discussions upgrading some of the gravel roads, but there are a number of problems that we would have to get over, obviously the cost; but the right-of-way is a big issue as most of these are old cart paths. The Planning Board decided as new developments come in we were going to try to take funds towards the upgrade on some of these roads. Jim indicated we have been successful in being able to upgrade Jenkins Road and a few other roads. As for Tinker Road, there is no development potential, at least not under the current regulations, so we will not see any developer funds to upgrade these roads. There is always the issue that some of the residents may not want the road upgraded. There have been request not to maintain Tinker Road and just leave the bumps, however, we have a duty to maintain it, and as we maintain the road, the speeds do increase. This is a Town wide issue.
Highway Safety Committee – Minutes – March 27, 2007
Page 4
There are no plans to upgrade the gravel portion of Tinker Road. Chief Bailey asked about putting down calcium to keep the dust down. Jim said we have been quite vigilante addressing a lot of the concerns raised by Mr. Ruchin. One of the issues of concern is contamination of his well and the pond, so we try to limit the salt or any type of chemical usage. Chief Bailey asked if we could water it? Jim said that is only temporary.
Gerry Gagne indicated one of the difficulties during the site inspection was the mandate of this group verses the Town Council. The issue of safety, Highway Safety, is what we are here for, and some of the issues of dust and flooding are road construction issues that do not have a pervue here. We only recommend to the Town Council on issues of safety. Again at the site inspection, they were unsure the direction of the one-way, but it would seem the safest direction would be the opposite of what was discussed, only from the stand point with a right from Joppa Hill Road onto Tinker Road and right from Tinker Road onto New Boston Road verses a left where you’d be stacking on New Boston Road to make a left hand turn, then making a left hand turn onto Joppa Hill Road. It would seem the direction
should be the opposite of what was originally recommended which exacerbates the dust problem because the dust carries in the opposite direction. If the flow was directly opposite to what he is suggesting, at least there would be the paved section and the dust would be further away from the house. That presents a problem; however, from a safety standpoint, either direction, there is adequate sight distance in both directions at both approaches, whether coming in or out. We also went down to Joppa Hill Road and New Boston Road to make sure that by restricting traffic on Tinker Road we wouldn’t be creating a problem at that intersection. Sight distance in both directions seems to be adequate. Even if left turns were negotiated from New Boston Road onto Joppa Hill Road, there is sufficient sight distance for a vehicle sitting there that they would not get rear ended by someone coming down the hill on New Boston Road trying to go onto Joppa Hill Road.
From a safety standpoint, it was difficult to identify a specific problem to recommend to Town Council.
Ken Peterson indicated the information was well put and he has great sympathy for Mr. Ruchin’s position regarding the dust issue. As this was looked at, the consensus at the end was, and Mr. Peterson feels this would be to Mr. Ruchin’s advantage if this committee gives him “a no finding” or “no position” in so far as they spoke with Jim about all the roads in Town and they are all increasing in volume and amount of traffic. Ken said ultimately for Mr. Ruchin to get a one-way, if that was the solution, would be to go before the Town Council. It was the committee members feeling if we give it an official neutral or no position, it would neither increase nor decrease the safety as it is now, turning it one-way. Taking it to the Town Council, you could now argue your
quality of life issues, such as the dust and water. Rather than table this item, the official position assuming is a “no position” or “neutral position” from a safety standpoint. Mr. Peterson did stress to Mr. Ruchin that the sub-committee’s recommendation is not to
Highway Safety Committee – Minutes – March 27, 2007
Page 5
table, but to give a position of neutrality from a safety point of view, which is our mandate.
Fire Chief, Scott Wiggin, had a quick question for Jim Stanford as this item may come to the Public Works Dept. either at the Town Council level. Are there things that we could do to improve that section of the road? Not considering the safety aspect, but the quality of life, drainage and other things and he did mention the potential of an easement. Should this go before the Town Council, the same discussion will take place. If you have a proposal or a plan you could say to them this is what it will take; such as types of swale line, or sloping or something so there would be a resolution. Whether the Town Council would vote to approve or fund it is a different story. This way there would be something showing corrective action. Jim said the one area that is referred to being the
drainage issue and the sight distance, we’ve been looking at widening out the intersection and possibly trying to gain a little bit of storage area for the drainage. The problem is this is an old cart path and the water flows from the hill, down across, down to his property, which is lower. It has always done that. Jim indicated there isn’t enough room right now for drainage facilities. We’ve tried to dig in a swale, and have tried connecting to the state system (due to New Boston Road), but the problem is running against the elevations. There is no engineering way to get it into their system to get the water out. The best we can do is what we’ve been doing is creating a little more storage, but eventually in a heavy rain the water will build up and sheet across the road like it always has. The neighbor is willing to speak with the Town regarding an easement. Jim indicated this would be a big expense. We
have gone in and cut down the area a little bit and tried to create a little more storage. He thinks it has helped a little and we do maintain it. It is on our last to tend to after a storm. Jim said there is no simple fix. Jim said it could be engineered and maybe put a cost to it. Councilor Michael Izbicki asked if we could do a phase approach. Jim indicated we’ve gotten away from phase approaches only because when we take those approaches we are reconstructing over and over again. It is not the best use and we have to pay set up fees to construct. It is best to do it all at once. Jim indicated there are a few homes for sale and that was the other item they struggled with. Jim is aware that Mr. Ruchin had spoken with some of the residents and they were in favor of the one-way if he remembers correctly. We would have to speak with the neighbors individually. Jim said we can solve the dust problem by
putting down a layer of pavement, but the problem is there is no drainage facility, therefore, the pavement will chew up and we’d have to now repair potholes. The only fix would be to get the easements, install a full road base, roadway and drainage and easements from the neighbors to drain the property. We’d be going from a sheet flow across the road to actually collecting and dumping it out. There would be a culvert. Jim said we could come up with a solution and probably a cost, but it would depend on easements and obtaining those rights. Mr. Ruchin asked Jim if he could sit down with him at some point. Jim said he would be happy to do so at anytime.
Highway Safety Committee – Minutes – March 27, 2007
Page 6
Chief Bailey asked if by not making a motion if that keeps us neutral? Jim believes that is what we’ve done in the past. Ken isn’t sure as saying that as he feels that is avoiding making a decision. Chief Bailey asked that he make a motion, but since he is an alternate, he is unable to make the motion.
Ken’s suggestion is this committee takes the position that from a safety point of view it will neither increase nor decrease the safety level that is their at this point by making it a one-way road. Gerry Gagne made the motion as voiced by General Peterson; motion seconded. Chief Bailey asked if there was any further question and Councilor Paul Roy indicated he would rather hold off voting on a position until Jim can come back to the committee as to what the dollar amount. Jim said it wouldn’t involve the one-way. Chief Wiggin said he doesn’t believe it would involve the Highway Safety. It could be at the Town Council level or whatever the case maybe and he doesn’t feel it would impact our decision at this time. Councilor Izbicki agreed with Councilor Roy and
feels we should have at least a budgetary number before it comes before the Town Council. Again, Chief Wiggin stressed not at this level. Councilor Paul Roy asked if there would be two different calculations because if it is one-way and upgraded it would be minimal to easements and pushing further to make it two-way. Chief Bailey said if this were to go before the Town Council, this committee would have to go before them and argue against the one-way. Chief Bailey, from what he is hearing, the one-way may not be the best option. Ken doesn’t believe that was the understanding of the three sub-committee members when out at the location. Ken said it was truly assuming as Jim said that cars travel for the conditions available on the road that exists, with the road that is their, by making it one-way, either way, it would neither increase nor decrease the level of safety that is their now. Chief Bailey said you are pushing people to
another intersection that may have a higher accident history. That was looked at. Chief Bailey said there is a little higher history at Joppa Hill Road, with a fatality two years ago. When doing a history they go back five years. The chief indicated 10 at Joppa Hill and 4 to 6 at Tinker, but he didn’t look as to what type of accidents. Someone asked if one-way, not as much width would be needed, and safer if upgraded and paved to have traffic flow from Joppa Hill to New Boston Road. Jim doesn’t know if the pavement changes the safety of the roadway. It would take care of the dust factor. Councilor Roy said if we had a dollar amount to bring the road up to standards whereby it would have proper drainage and all, it would be less costly than to have one-way. Jim said it would be somewhat less costly, as you are still paying on the construction, but saving on pavement. He said you would be saving about 10 to 15% in the
overall costs. Jim said it would be less costly. Paul Roy asked if would be easier to obtain an easement for a few feet. Jim said the easement to the roadway would be easier to obtain. The problem would be obtaining an easement for the drainage because all of the water sheet flows across when you collect it and put a big pipe onto some ones property, it makes it a little more invasive.
Highway Safety Committee – Minutes – March 27, 2007
Page 7
Chief Bailey asked for the motion to be repeated. Gerry Gagne asked for the motion to be reread by the secretary “this committee takes the position that from a safety point of view” ………. Chief Bailey said it was neutral. All committee members understood the motion as previously stated at the beginning (top section of page 6). Chief Bailey asked if all were in favor of the motion; all in favor; vote on motion passed; and 2 no’s; motion approved.
New Business
Pedestrian/hikers signage at Van Loan Preserve Trailheads (requested by Bedford Land Trust)
Presentation was made by Jeanene Procopis, Chairman of the Bedford Land Trust, and Rita Carroll, Administrator. Trails to the Van Loan Preserve will be opening on May 12th and they felt there may be a safety issue so they wanted to speak with this committee. Ms. Procopis showed on a map the location of the Preserve with 68 acres, one of the entrances is located directly opposite the driveway at the Benedictine Park (north of Church Road and Wallace Road). The other entrance is located diagonally opposite the entrance to Mueller Park on North Amherst Road (west of the PSNH power lines). Currently the signage for both Mueller Park and Benedictine Park is pretty suttle. If you don’t know that you are coming upon a park, you probably wouldn’t notice the sign, especially on
North Amherst Road. The sign for the Benedictine Park sits back from the road and actually faces Wallace Road. They felt it was their responsibility since they will be opening up these trails on the Van Loan Preserve to bring this to the attention of this committee. People wishing to visit can park at either Mueller Park or the Benedictine Park, but in both cases they are crossing a road, and that is the issue. At the present time they don’t know how much foot traffic they will have.
Chief Bailey asked what they are looking for on the signs – the brown hiker signs? Ms. Carroll said they are standard. Ms. Procopis said they are also suggesting a crosswalk striping. The Van Loan property is private, not public property. The family retains the ownership and the Bedford Land Trust was given the easement. They monitor to make sure there are no invasions or encroachments or building or dumping on the Preserve. Jim does not have a problem with a couple of signs. As for the crosswalks, he has some concerns and when marking crosswalks you are indicating it is a safe place to cross. On Wallace Road, there is a hill, and it may not be the best and safest place for someone to cross. Chief Bailey asked about the signs. Chief Wiggin asked if it is
single post with dual signage on one side or will it be two signs on each northbound/southbound on the Benedictine Property. Chief Bailey suggested two signs east/west and north/south. Chief Wiggin suggested in the mountains they have trailhead entrance and trailhead with an arrow. This may be appropriate at least on the west side of Wallace Road and maybe on the north side of North Amherst Road.
Highway Safety Committee – Minutes – March 30, 2007
Page 8
Gerry Gagne mentioned in regards to crosswalks and with parking lot at the Benedictine property as well as Mueller Park, you would probably have to have signs in advance of crosswalk ahead and then the trailhead signs as being proposed at the cross walk. As for Mueller Park, he isn’t sure of the sight distance, believes there is a curve. Chief Wiggin indicated traveling from the west it is somewhat restrictive. The Benedictine site is on the hill, not the steep portion, but people would need advance notification because they are picking up speed as they are coming down the hill indicating a crosswalk ahead and the trailhead signs could be located directly at the crosswalk. Similarly across from Mueller Park, there would be a crosswalk with the trailhead signs and additional signs in advance
notifying people. On North Amherst Road, motorists do pick up speed coming from the west.
Chief Bailey doesn’t believe in the White Mountain National Forest with all the trail signs, he has ever seen a crosswalk and those are high-speed roads. Chief Bailey is not crazy about the crosswalks. He does support the trail signs. He asked as to who would be paying for the signs. Would it be the Town? Ms. Procopis said that is the proposal. They felt it was there obligation to come before us to let us know the trails will be open. Jim doesn’t have a problem supplying the signs and posts.
Tony Grande asked if they are planning on a campaign for awareness to the public so they are aware of the location. Jim mentioned there is a quarterly newsletter from the Town that will be sent out soon. The deadline for the article is Friday, March 30, 2007.
Submissions can be made to Dawn in the Town Manager’s office. Ms. Carroll indicated they are having an opening event. Chief Bailey does not believe this needs to go before the Town Council as this is an advisory sign, not an ordinance. Paul Roy, Vice Chairman for the Town Council agreed. Chief Wiggin asked to clarify “trailhead entrance” along with the motion. Jim said maybe a small plaque underneath. This was acceptable with Ms. Procopis.
Tony asked Ms. Procopis with her campaign announcement would be to make it very clear to people to be very careful when crossing from the parking lot to the trail areas, as these are very busy roads.
A motion was made by Tony Grande to ask the Public Works Director to install these signs at the trailhead as he sees appropriate. Motion seconded; passed unanimously.
Stop sign request – corner of Brick Mill & Ledgewood Road (requested by The Tulloch’s)
Chief Bailey believes he has spoken with the resident and expressed his feelings. Gerry Gagne thought this had been before this committee. Ken Peterson, who lives in that neighborhood, stated this is a very dangerous intersection.
Highway Safety Committee Meeting – Minutes – March 27, 2007
Page 9
Chief Bailey said there is no traffic history at that location. He also mentioned that we do not install stop signs to control speed. He supports 4-way stop signs. This is a 3-way intersection. Currently there is a stop sign at Ledgewood. Gerry indicated this is also a bus drop off. Paul Roy suggested placing the counter first. A motion was made by Paul Roy to table this item until we have results from the counter; motion seconded; motion passed unanimously.
2007 Grants
The following is Chief Bailey’s wish list for the 2007 Grants if the money is available:
The grants (equipment) are 50/50, except for the patrol grants as they pay all the overtime salary and benefits
1) Seat belt patrols
2) Speed
3) DWI Patrols
4) Radars
5) Permanent speed signs (if he should have money for this item), but can be moved
Ken Peterson asked about more traffic counters.
Chief Bailey did mention lowering the speed from 35 to 30 on Nashua Road near the parks before the High School opens. Criteria is 85 percentile. This item will need to go on the next agenda, per Chief Bailey.
Tony Grande asked about flashing signs for the school; north and south on Nashua Road and west on County Road. Chief Bailey said the school has paid for them in the past.
Tony Grande mentioned an article for the newsletter about roadside, intersection clearing for the residents to maintain on their property the overhanging shrubs, trees and etc., thus allowing for proper sight.
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Joanne E. Fraser, Public Works Secretary and Highway Safety Committee Secretary.
#22223
| 
