Residents press Lewisboro to act on Richfield Avenue after consultant flags heavy cut‑through traffic and speeding

A consultant hired by the Town of Lewisboro told the Town Board on Dec. 15 that Richfield Avenue is being used as a commuter cut‑through and carries roughly 1,000 vehicles per day, with an estimated 80% of those vehicles coming from Connecticut, and travel speeds measured in places in the high 30s to low 40s miles per hour where the limit is 25 mph.

Elaine J, a senior traffic engineer with AKRF, presented volume and speed data and said the corridor’s narrow geometry and grades limit some options. "About 1,000 vehicles per day on this road. About 800 of those cars are Connecticut license plates," she said, and showed maps of the locations with the highest travel speeds.

The consultant laid out a range of mitigations: routing‑data edits to discourage cut‑throughs, enhanced signage ("local traffic only" or "no through traffic"), targeted enforcement, speed‑feedback signs, low‑cost rumble strips and three classes of infrastructure interventions — raised intersections (estimated $8,000–$15,000 each), permanent speed humps (roughly $5,000–$10,000 apiece plus signage and drainage costs) and more disruptive one‑way conversions or road closures that would eliminate through traffic but impose detours on residents.

Former Bedford Supervisor Chris, invited by residents to share local experience, described a multi‑year process in his town that combined speed studies, petitions, temporary humps for preview and public hearings. "They work. They really do work," he said of speed humps, while also noting the importance of siting and community buy‑in.

Emergency services raised practical concerns in advance of the meeting and during the report. The town received written input from South Salem Fire and local ambulance services noting that continuous speed humps can slow large apparatus and jostle patients, and that some alternatives — raised intersections or speed cushions — have different trade‑offs for response time, patient handling and snow removal.

Those technical trade‑offs did not slow residents’ appeals. Dozens of local speakers told the board they have experienced dangerous driving, near misses and dog and pedestrian close calls. "We want a solution," said resident Peter Alamman, who has lived on the corridor for 29 years, urging the board to adopt measures. Bob Gorman, who tested driving times, said installing seven speed humps would lengthen an end‑to‑end trip by “less than 20 seconds,” arguing the inconvenience to residents is small compared with the safety gains.

Board members said they heard the urgency and asked staff for concrete next steps: to register routing changes in mapping services (the consultant referred to a routing‑data tool often used by municipalities), gather firm cost estimates (including signs and drainage work), consult with insurance carriers on liability, and refine an outreach plan for residents of the corridor. Supervisor Gonzalez said the study was requested by residents and that the town has collected data in 2024 and 2025 before hiring AKRF to produce options.

The board did not adopt a final remedy on Dec. 15. Members signaled they will pursue lower‑cost, quick actions first — updating routing data and targeted signage — while asking highway staff and the police chief to assemble firm bids and a funding plan for any infrastructure work early in 2026. The board also asked that ambulance and fire chiefs be part of follow‑up discussions to weigh safety and operational impacts.

What’s next: staff will report cost proposals, draft outreach steps to affected property owners, and return to the board with implementation options and funding sources. Residents seeking to press the issue further said they are prepared to provide petitions and continued testimony at future meetings.