Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hampden council schedules reconsideration of traffic-calming pilot after workshop discussion

Hampden Town Council Workshop · March 30, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members heard staff and consultants explain a Safe Streets for All grant-funded pilot and moved to place a motion to reconsider the March 16 denial on the agenda for the next regular meeting; public commenters raised questions about data and missing speed-limit signs.

The Hampden Town Council workshop on March 30 revisited a recently denied proposal to partner on a Safe Streets for All grant-funded traffic-calming pilot on a state road through town. Vice Chair said he called the meeting after discussing the issue with staff and introduced staff and consultant support before council questions.

Council members pressed staff on the chosen site for the pilot, noting there were several candidate locations and asking why the crossing near the schools was selected. Matt, a council member, said staff selected the location and that the chief recommended it to slow traffic near schools. “Staff did,” Matt said, urging clarity that staff—not the consultant—chose the site.

Consultant Jim Tassy described similar gateway demonstrations across Maine and asked the council to allow the town to forward the design to Maine DOT for regional review. Tassy described the approach as a temporary, low-cost test that uses flex posts and visual narrowing to measure whether speeds decline before committing to permanent curbs or islands. “This is not a new or untested intervention… it is proven to reduce traffic speeds,” Tassy said.

Kiki stated she would move to reconsider the council’s prior denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting, noting that additional input might have changed her earlier vote. Eric (council/legal/staff) reminded the group that workshops cannot take formal action and that a motion to reconsider must be made at the next regular meeting in accordance with their rules and Robert’s Rules.

Public commenters raised concerns about data and signage. Resident Linda Valcourt told council members the packet overstated safety problems (she said there were no fatalities or serious injuries at the site) and cited a July 2025 speed study reporting speeds near 35 mph in locations where the posted speed is described in the packet as 25 mph. Staff said crews will identify and replace missing speed-limit signs and that a week or two of radar data will be collected before any devices are installed.

The workshop ended with the council agreeing that formal reconsideration would occur at the next regular council meeting; no vote on the pilot was taken at the workshop.