Narberth committee advances draft traffic‑calming policy to collect more data, set eligibility rules

The Public Health & Safety Committee on June 13 reviewed a draft traffic‑calming policy intended to make evaluations more strategic and visible to residents.

Committee members said the policy would standardize how the borough receives and evaluates requests and avoid repeating the same conversations every few years. “This will help, kind of remove some of those inefficiencies,” a staff member presenting the draft said.

The policy as circulated sets three eligibility criteria: (1) the street must be a local road or minor collector on a residential or mixed‑use street; (2) no traffic data collection has been conducted at the same location within the past 24 months unless the location experienced a major change in traffic patterns; and (3) requests must be supported by documented concerns from at least three households, businesses, or school representatives, or be identified by the director of public safety, the director of public works, or a majority of the committee. The presenter said the 24‑month threshold refers to routine speed and volume data collected with borough equipment, not a full engineering study.

Committee members debated the 24‑month window. One member said 24 months could be “a very low threshold” for redoing data if the street geometry and traffic patterns are unchanged; another said events such as major nearby construction could trigger a new review sooner. The draft includes a staff discretion clause so a new data collection can be ordered when “extraordinary” or significant changes occur.

Members also discussed a prioritization matrix used by other municipalities that would score sites objectively (speed, volume, pedestrian activity, previous mitigation attempts, resident petition support, location on a bicycle route, resurfacing programs). The draft includes a “toolbox” describing low‑cost (level‑1) measures, implementation costs and tradeoffs, and recommendations about which items borough public works could implement internally.

No formal action or vote was taken; staff said they will continue refining the draft, solicit input from engineering and the fire company, and return a revised proposal for further review.

The committee emphasized that the policy should account for both quantitative data and qualitative, lived‑experience reports from residents. “It is more than just data collection,” the presenter said, noting that follow‑up conversations with residents are an important part of the evaluation.

Next steps: staff will update terminology (the draft will distinguish “traffic data collection” from an engineering study), add the staff discretion language for extraordinary changes, and circulate a revised draft for additional input before the committee schedules further action.