Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newburgh council pauses expansion of speed tables after resident complaints, directs corridor study
Summary
Council members heard detailed complaints about noise, driveway safety and possible structural damage from an existing speed table on Jennings Street, approved one-time study direction rather than new installations and asked staff to fold a broader corridor traffic-calming review into an SS4A grant study.
Newburgh town officials heard lengthy public comment and council discussion Wednesday over a speed table installed on Jennings Street and opted to study the corridor further rather than immediately authorize new devices. Resident comments described increased noise and driveway-safety concerns after the device was installed; staff and the town engineer discussed alternatives while council members asked for more data before spending additional money.
The most immediate public comment came from a resident who said the speed table “has increased the noise to the level of noise pollution,” citing rumble from trucks and farm equipment and saying she can no longer carry on conversations in her front yard. She also said three cracks have appeared in the sunroom floor above the device since it went in, though she said she could not prove the table caused the cracking.
Town Engineer Drew Blaney told the council the corridor needs a comprehensive look: “There’s the volume of traffic and the speed out there making for some unsafe situations for pedestrians,” he said, and recommended a corridor study that would evaluate a mix of measures — chokers, bump-outs, striping and other “perceptual” changes — rather than relying on a single treatment.
Town Manager Chris Cook summarized the staff recommendation and asked for direction. Cook noted the council previously authorized up to $30,000 to pilot up to six additional traffic-calming locations but said funding is insufficient to do all six and that the town had already implemented one pilot. Cook also said staff has the videos and correspondence from the resident and suggested folding any further action into the town’s SS4A (Safe Streets and Roads for All) grant study and waiting to see study recommendations.
Council members expressed mixed views. Several said they had received little additional public feedback beyond the one detailed complaint but wanted more evidence about performance and impacts before approving further tables; one councilmember said doing nothing was not acceptable because pedestrian safety remained a problem. The assembled direction was to postpone buying or installing another speed table, to study the corridor and to review other jurisdictions’ pilot results and technical options before deciding on additional physical devices.
The council discussed signage and placement: staff noted minimum sign placement is at the speed table itself and that installing advance-warning signs requires additional signage. Members said they did not want to clutter the historic district with excess signs. Cost figures discussed included an installed temporary speed table at roughly $9,000 and an estimate of $60,000–$70,000 for a permanent built-in crosswalk/hump in some locations.
The council instructed staff to collect comparative information from other communities, to document complaints and performance data, and to include a corridor evaluation in the SS4A study work. No formal policy change or new purchases were approved at the meeting.
Looking ahead, staff said the SS4A study would likely finish next year and that the town may include several crosswalk and bump-out options as part of a broader 2026 capital approach.
