Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cranston council weighs engineering and enforcement to address speeding on Hope Road
Summary
Council members discussed a mix of targeted traffic studies, signage, enforcement and road markings to address speeding on Hope Road near Hope Highlands, with some members opposing raising speed limits near schools.
Councilman Ritz urged the Cranston City Council on Sept. 22 to pursue a package of engineering and enforcement measures after a traffic study showed a large share of vehicles exceeding the posted 25 mph limit on Hope Road.
The council discussed why the matter matters: Hope Road runs past Hope Highlands Middle School and town athletic fields, and residents and council members described blind curves, sidewalks that end, and children walking to fields as safety concerns. Ritz said a prior monitoring study showed “62% of the vehicles that they monitored were going at least 20, at least 10 miles over the 25 miles per hour speed limit,” and that the average recorded speed was about 37 mph.
City and police staff described a set of possible interventions they are prepared to implement without an outside study and flagged options that would require further analysis. The traffic engineer had recommended dividing Hope Road into three study zones (Phoenix to Pippin Orchard; Pippin Orchard to Burlingame; Burlingame to 7 Mile Road) to target remedies by segment. Proposed measures discussed included fresh lane re-striping, targeted lane-narrowing where feasible, radar speed display signs, increased enforcement by the police department, road stenciling marking school zones, repair or replacement of damaged radar signs, and a public information campaign.
Police Colonel Winquist told the council he supported many of the measures. The city’s director of public works and the traffic engineer warned that some interventions — notably narrowing the traveled way — carry collision risks if done where right-of-way or roadway geometry does not allow it. The director said, “the road narrowing actually is not an option then speaking with the traffic engineer because there's no — there's no further narrowing. You're just gonna have head-on collisions if that were the case.”
Ritz and other council members also reported conversations with the traffic engineer and police chief about the unconventional idea of raising the posted speed limit on long, straight stretches to 40 mph so drivers would be less likely to exceed it; the police colonel described that as a concept he had discussed but several council members — including Councilwoman Heroyan and Councilman Bonanno — rejected raising limits near a school. Bonanno said school-area limits should remain 25 mph or be reduced to 20 mph and supported additional markings, enforcement and street-level stencils to increase visibility.
City staff noted a formal outside traffic study (the type that could justify speed-limit changes citywide) would cost “tens of thousands of dollars.” The director recommended immediate, lower-cost steps the city can implement now — repairing the radar sign, adding stenciled “School” markings near the school, posting school-zone speed signs and increasing enforcement — while the council considers whether a paid, comprehensive study is needed.
No ordinance or binding policy change was proposed or adopted at the meeting. Council members asked staff to proceed with the low-cost interventions and increased police attention; staff agreed to coordinate implementation and to report back to the council on results and next steps.
The discussion drew multiple council members, the police colonel, the traffic engineer and DPW staff; members of the public did not deliver undocketed comments on this agenda item during the meeting.
