Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press for speed cushions on Crestline Road after traffic study; board asks for more data
Summary
A resident‑led presentation and petition urged the board to install speed cushions on Crestline Road, citing petition signatures and national safety research; police and engineers said additional fall traffic surveys and Pendot warrant criteria must be reviewed before action.
Residents and a presenter who identified himself as a board‑certified emergency physician urged the Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors on July 15 to pursue speed cushions on Crestline Road, saying traffic counts and pedestrian exposure make the neighborhood unsafe.
The presenter (identified in the transcript as Dr. Hes) said neighborhood petitions and a traffic review show a meaningful share of drivers exceed the 25 mph speed limit and cited studies linking small increases in speed to higher pedestrian mortality. He argued that the standard 85th‑percentile rule underestimates pedestrian risk and that speed cushions would not require additional police manpower. "The fact that we're choosing not to enforce speeding with a ticket ... does not mean cars going at 36 miles an hour should not argue for speed humps in the neighborhood," the presenter told the board.
Police and staff described the township's current approach: traffic data collection, use of VASCAR enforcement units (which typically allow 11 mph over the limit for practical enforcement), and adherence to PennDOT warrants (criteria) for traffic‑calming measures. The police chief said a May traffic study recorded roughly 3,833 vehicles on Crestline during the sampling period, an average speed of 21.6 mph and an 85th percentile speed of 26.6 mph; only a handful of vehicles exceeded enforcement thresholds used by the township.
Board members and the chief agreed to seek additional fall data and to refer the matter back to the Traffic Committee for technical review. "Let's get a little more information and we'll talk about it," the chair said. Several supervisors acknowledged residents' concerns but emphasized that highway safety engineering standards, enforcement limitations and PennDOT warrants constrain near‑term action.
What happens next: the police Traffic Unit plans follow‑up counts at the end of summer and into September. The board advised residents to work with the Traffic Committee and the police chief; no traffic‑calming installations were approved at the July 15 meeting.
Sources: resident presentation (Dr. Hes), police traffic data presented during public comment, and board discussion at the July 15 meeting.
