Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Signage Speed Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee stands by Bedford, McCurdy speed reductions as complaints rise
Summary
The Highway Safety Committee reviewed resident complaints about new 30 mph limits on Bedford Road and McCurdy, said it followed an engineering traffic investigation, and described next steps including targeted sign relocations and the option of a petition to restore 35 mph next March.
The Highway Safety Committee on April 21 defended recent speed-limit changes on Bedford Road and McCurdy, saying the reductions followed a traffic investigation and that the town has carried out required public-notice steps.
Chair (speaker S4) opened discussion about a wave of social-media complaints and asked staff to confirm the committee’s record of outreach and data. Committee member (speaker S3) said the town provided the requested data and reiterated that “we did everything right. We did nothing wrong.” The committee noted the select board voted to pursue the reduction after a public hearing at which traffic data and crash history were presented to voters.
The committee reviewed signage placement after residents reported missing or confusing signs. S1, the town highway staff participant, said the committee had recently purchased roughly a dozen new signs and replaced seven or eight, noting “The change of these 2 rows, spent $2,400 on signs of posts.” Members agreed to relocate one sign that was redundant near Chestnut Hill and to place at least one additional sign at the top of McCurdy where drivers enter from Joe English Road.
Members discussed technical causes of driver confusion, including how some in-car navigation and heads-up displays show older speed data. S4 and others said updates in GPS map systems (Garmin, Google) and dashboard software can lag behind local changes, and that there is no simple one-call fix for those devices.
On the procedural question of whether a townwide speed-limit change requires an outside engineering firm, the committee cited state statute language and local practice. Members said Southern New Hampshire Planning Services and in‑town counters will provide follow-up data; S3 said the town’s traffic investigation was prepared in-house and provided to the resident who raised concerns. A petition to return the speed limit to 35 mph could be brought as a warrant article next March, committee members said.
The committee emphasized that enforcement and driver behavior also affect actual speeds: lowering the posted limit does not guarantee compliance. Members urged patience, said they will monitor data and public reaction, and recommended posting an explanatory update on the town’s official channels rather than engaging directly on social-media complaint threads.
The committee did not take a new formal vote on the ordinance at the April 21 meeting; it recorded the earlier public‑hearing outcome and set follow-up work—data collection, targeted sign relocations, and public outreach—before any further changes.
The committee is expected to revisit the traffic-counter results and any petition proposals when follow-up data are available; the next committee meeting is scheduled for May 19.
