Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery Township board signals removal of Grays Lane chicanes after sharp resident backlash
Summary
After weeks of local anger and a packed public-comment period, Montgomery Township supervisors agreed staff should remove the temporary chicanes on Grays Lane and pursue targeted enforcement and an independent traffic study to find a long-term solution.
Montgomery Township supervisors signaled they will remove temporary chicanes installed on Grays Lane after multiple residents described safety risks, loss of on-street parking and damage to the plastic delineators.
The issue dominated the April 28 board meeting, where dozens of residents and several supervisors traded sharply different views on whether the chicanes had reduced speed, created hazards for larger vehicles and harmed property values. Resident Dave Sherman told the board he had photographed a tractor-trailer negotiating the chicanes and said the measure “doesn’t work” and risks collisions. Catherine Stout, who lives near the chicanes, said her children and bus routes faced unsafe conditions and urged immediate action: “We tried it. It’s not ideal.”
Township staff had recommended keeping the installations for six months to collect enforcement data and hire an independent traffic engineer to review alternatives, while the township’s highway safety officer reported selective enforcement efforts and traffic-count equipment in place. The officer said the department had conducted multiple enforcement details and collected speed readings; preliminary counts showed only a few vehicles reaching the highest recorded speeds.
Several supervisors said they were sympathetic to neighbors’ concerns and wanted a plan before permanent changes. One supervisor recommended additional enforcement and a third-party engineering analysis; another argued for removing the delineators promptly to address resident unrest. Legal counsel reminded the board it could not take an unadvertised official action, but staff said public works could remove the delineators and grind the paint once directed and scheduled.
In response to repeated public pleas, the board called for immediate targeted enforcement, outreach and a third-party traffic engineering review while directing staff to prepare logistics for removal of the delineators. Staff noted damaged delineators would be inspected and that reusable units could be redeployed elsewhere if appropriate.
Next steps announced by staff included: scheduling selective enforcement and compiling more traffic-count data, issuing a request for proposals for an independent traffic engineer, inspecting and cataloging damaged delineators, and coordinating removal with the contractor who can grind off paint and markings. The board said it will ask for a public presentation of the independent study and additional community engagement before any permanent traffic-calming installations are considered.
The meeting closed with supervisors and residents urging clearer public communication on future measures and a commitment to follow-up presentations and outreach.
