Pedestrian Improvements from the Local Traffic Authority

LTA Town Improvements

Last week at the Police Commission meeting there were a number of pedestrian points of business. I wanted to share them with everyone. Some of the improvements take a long time to come to fruition but our concerns have been, and continue to be, heard.

Earlier this year the crosswalk signs along Church Hill Road were upgraded. They have multiplied, are more visible and were moved into better locations for pedestrians.

Tait Road

The town has approved "No Parking Here To Corner" signs for installation along Tait Road for the 25 feet before Taits Mill, and for the 25 feet along Taits Mill before Tait. These are consistent with CT parking regulations so people shouldn't be parking there anyway. Enforcing these no parking zones will make it safer for people to navigate that intersection which has bad sight lines.

Daniels Farm Road

The results of a traffic study at the intersection of Daniels Farm Road and Strobel Road indicate that a traffic light is warranted. The project includes some widening of that section of DFR along the east side, installing a traffic light, sidewalks and crosswalks with a dedicated pedestrian signal. The project will include grade change and geometry improvement. There will be a public info meeting 5/31/2017, probably at the High School and the work is expected to be done in 2018. This is a state road, so the next step is to submit the warrant to OSTA for approval.

Whitney Road

Trail Crossing

This summer the town will install warning lights at the Whitney Road crossing. The Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) will be pedestrian activated and be placed on both sides of the road facing in both directions. Since Whitney gets so much local traffic it won't take too long for drivers to learn that the flashing lights mean someone is actually crossing and slow down. The Chief asked about also including a speed warning sign that flashes you speed if you exceed the speed limit. The Commission approved that request as well. This should make that crossing feel much safer.

Whitney and Main Street (111)

The town has approved the request to ask the state for a traffic light at Whitney and Main St. Separate from that the town is going to initiate a master plan for that neighborhood. Hopefully, between the two, we can get crosswalks at that intersection and make it reachable by pedestrians.

Trail Crossing at 111

The Town Engineering Department and an engineer from Tighe and Bond presented a proposed plan for the trail crossing of 111 that calls for RRFBs (3 sets in both directions), improved advanced signage and advanced pavement markings (SLOW PED XING). The plan, as submitted, would be installed this year (probably Fall).

Addressing the Commission, I acknowledged that while the plan was an improvement on the existing crossing treatment it did not go far enough to make crossing feel safe to me. In my opinion the speed differential, traffic volume, road width and number of lanes combine to require a more aggressive treatment. Drivers need to be alerted to the crossing and reminded that they need to STOP for pedestrians within the crosswalk. The drivers just don't see us in time to stop.

The state has recently installed a few HAWK signals (overhead lights that flash red when a pedestrian crosses) and I asked about installing a one here. While I felt the Commission was receptive, the consulting engineer indicated that it was not the right treatment for that crossing. So, the plan, as drafted by the consultants, was approved for submission to the State who must still approve it.

Patience is a virtue.

Town of Trumbull Contacts

Town of Trumbull Officials

Please contact any or all of the officials listed below with your concerns for pedestrian safety and active transportation.

Trumbull Officials
Mr. Tim Herbst	therbst@trumbull-ct.gov
Chief Lombardo	mlombardo@trumbull-ct.gov
Deputy Chief Kirby	rkirby@trumbull-ct.gov
Police Commission	policecommission@trumbull-ct.gov
Ms. Rina Bakalar	rbakalar@trumbull-ct.gov
First Selectman Herbst	firstselectman@trumbull-ct.gov
Angelo Magliocco	angelomagliocco@aol.com

Trumbull Town Council Representatives
District 1
Vincent DiMasi, Jr.	vdimasi@trumbull-ct.gov
Jack Testani	jtestani@trumbull-ct.gov
Donna Seidell	dseidell@trumbull-ct.gov
Bill Mecca	wmecca@trumbull-ct.gov
Dawn Cantafio	dcantafio@trumbull-ct.gov
District 2
Thomas Whitmoyer	twhitmoyer@trumbull-ct.gov
Mary Beth Thornton	mthornton@trumbull-ct.gov
Tony Scinto	tscinto@trumbull-ct.gov
Edna Colucci	ecolucci@trumbull-ct.gov
Richard Kascak, Jr.	rkascak@trumbull-ct.gov
District 3
Jason Marsh	jmarsh@gs-lawfirm.com
Carl Massaro, Jr.	councilchairman@trumbull-ct.gov
Lori Rosasco-Schwartz	lschwartz@trumbull-ct.gov
Mark Block	mblock@trumbull-ct.gov
Michael London	mlondon@trumbull-ct.gov
District 4
Lisa Valenti	lvalenti@trumbull-ct.gov
Rick Costantini	rcostantini@trumbull-ct.gov
Mark LeClair	mleclair@trumbull-ct.gov
Joe Pifko	jpifko@trumbull-ct.gov
Ann Marie Evangelista	aevangelista@trumbull-ct.gov
Matt Caron	mcaron@trumbull-ct.gov

RE: Open Letter to Trumbull Police Chief & Commission

"Mission is to ... ensure the safety ... of all people..."

Last year (December, 2016) I addressed the Trumbull Police Commission and told them that, as a frequent pedestrian in town, I do not feel safe using our roads. From my perspective the primary causes are that traffic is too fast and the town lacks sufficient pedestrian infrastructure, especially in and around key pedestrian destinations. I argued that safety for all road users rests solely with the Police Department and the Local Traffic Authority, both of which are represented by the Police Commission.

The commissioners encouraged me to share my thoughts, and expand on the details of the challenging areas I briefly mentioned, directly with Chief Lombardo (you can read that lengthy email here).

If you do not feel safe as a pedestrian, or do not feel your loved ones are safe when they are pedestrians, I encourage you to share your thoughts with Chief Lombardo as well. Feel free, as I did, to also copy First Selectman Herbst, Deputy Chief Kirby, and Economic Developer Rina Bakalar (emails below). You can also add your Town Council Representatives (which I did not).

My immediate hope is that we can fix those spots in town that put us at the greatest risk, making Trumbull a more walkable community. But I also hope that by considering pedestrian needs from the outset of a project the town will develop pedestrian friendly locations that thrive socially and economically, and provide long term value to the town by creating the kind of community in which tomorrow's home buyers and businesses will choose to invest, live and raise families.

---

Pain Points in Trumbull, from a pedestrian's view

this list of pedestrian pain points was an addendum to my Open Letter to the Trumbull, CT Police Commission. If you have others I would encourage you to contact the police and highway departments.

Pain Points in Trumbull, from a pedestrian's view

Some random thoughts from my pedestrian travels through town.

Speed Limits

One of the greatest threats to pedestrians is the speed differential they face with vehicular traffic. The town speed limit is 35 mph and for many drivers, 35 means traffic travels at 45 mph. The speed along most of our arteries, the routes to our pedestrian centers, is often 40 mph. At 45 mph a pedestrian crash is 90% fatal while at 25 mph a crash is fatal only 10% of the time.
Recommendation: Lower the town speed limit to 25mph. At 25 drivers have more time to react. If the LTA is unwilling to lower the speed limit to a pedestrian-friendly speed town-wide they should at least establish pedestrian corridors near each of the economic / neighborhood centers and lower speed limits there.

1. Madison Village
2. Long Hill Green
3. Trumbull Center
4. Town Hall Green / library / Old Church Hill Road area
5. Nichols

Church Hill Road and Tait Road

The threat to a greater number of pedestrians due to the proximity to the PRVT trail, the current traffic volume and anticipated volume of the trail completion, warrants special consideration for this location.
The current PED Xing signs are sited on the oncoming traffic side of the crosswalks, meaning that they obstruct a drivers visibility of pedestrians and require those waiting to cross to lean out into traffic to determine if cars are coming and/or are stopping. This intersection will see increased pedestrian traffic crossing after the planned strip mall is built at 968 White Plains Road (this increase in PED volume was not discussed in the traffic study submitted by the developer). Traveling downhill at 35 mph (or often faster) or accelerating uphill, traffic rarely stops for pedestrians. I have stood at the crossing while 10, 15 and 20 cars have passed, not stopping. This crossing would greatly benefit from a pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB). As previously noted, traffic through this area should be moving at 25 mph.
The road striping here is very dangerous for pedestrians as well and would greatly benefit from restriping to accommodate a turn lane for either direction (into Tait) and a through lane. This restriping would also accommodate a dedicated turning lane into Edison and a trough lane to continue up Church Hill, reducing driver merging and conflict.
My own (again, unscientific) observation is that 95% of drivers stop for pedestrians coming out of the front doors of Stop & Shop. Just down Church Hill Road, at the Grandview Drive / Tait Road crossing I have stood in the crosswalk waiting to cross while 10, 15, 20 cars drive past. Why are drivers so much more likely to stop, as required by law, for pedestrians at Stop & Shop?

1. Drivers are traveling slowly enough that stopping is effortless.
2. Pedestrians have a clear place (the crosswalk) and drivers expect to see people walk out of Stop & Shop.
3. There is a hard-to-miss placard in the middle of the road that reminds drivers they need to stop for pedestrians.

This suggests all three ingredients are needed for high pedestrian volume areas in and around town:

1. Drivers have to be traveling slowly enough to anticipate, see, react and stop safely (see note on speed limits)
2. Pedestrians need their own dedicated places (crosswalks and bike lanes) where drivers expect to see them. Those spaces need to be clearly marked and signed. Crosswalks should be explicitly painted where high volume places pedestrians at risk and especially at unmarked crosswalks (i.e. from the north east corner of the intersection of CT127 and Daniels Farm Road, crossing to the western side of 127 in front of 968 White Plains Road.) So many of our intersections are not completely striped for crosswalks. Church Hill Road at Middlebrooks was recently restriped but only for three of the four crossings. A Park Lane crosswalk near my house, a 5 minute walk to Jane Ryan School, was removed (painted over).
3. Drivers need to be reminded that pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way and that Connecticut law requires drivers to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. Avoid the mixed message of "yield to pedestrians" on signage. Add signs indicating cyclists may use the full lane and reminding drivers of the 3-foot passing law.

Long Hill Green

There are no crosswalks at the green. The speed limit is 40mph along that stretch. The sidewalks dump walkers into the street with no warning to drivers. Reducing the speed limit to 25 mph and installing stop signs at Main Street and Whitney Ave would allow for crosswalks without impeding traffic flows. It would also ease traffic turning from Whitney onto Main Street making that area much safer. Long Hill Green area could also benefit from other traffic calming measures like lane diets and bike lanes.

Trail crossing at Whitney Ave

Recent improvements at this location have made this crossing much safer. This would also be a good location for RRFBs placed far enough away to let drivers stop. A sign to the effect of "trail crossing, heavy pedestrian area, be prepared to stop" would improve the crossing, too.

Route 111 PRVT / Indian Ledge Park

This crossing is four lanes of 40 mph traffic and, with an ADT of 23k it is the second most heavily trafficked place in town in town. The danger pedestrians face here is imminent and real. Many families turn around rather than try to cross the road. There is increased foot traffic from the gym as people exercising there often run on the trail, too. The current flashing yellow light is insufficient to warn drivers of their legal obligation to stop for pedestrians. Frequently one lane will stop while another will not, creating obstructions that worsen visibility for crossing pedestrians and raise their risk.
As the LTA "accepting" ConnDOT's stonewalling is just not an option. This is a prime location for a HAWK (or similar) beacon. Their use in CT and by ConnDOT are not unprecedented.

Madison Village

There are no crosswalks at Madison Village. There is insufficient parking already, meaning that drivers to the area park across Madison Avenue, a wide, relatively straight and fast road. Lane diets along all of Madison would complement a reduced 25 mph traffic speed and provide room for bike lanes (or sidewalks) and make pedestrian crossings safer. Signage for pedestrian crossings would let drivers know to expect pedestrians and prepare to stop.

Trumbull Center

Trumbull Center does not provide enough crosswalks As pedestrian traffic follows development there will be increased street crossings. White Plains Road needs additional crossings so drivers know where to expect pedestrians. The intersection at Daniels Farm Road should be striped on all four legs.
The recently revealed PRVT plan does not include bike lanes through town. Either the sidewalk needs to be widened to 10 feet to accommodate all trail users or there needs to be dedicated space on White Plains Road (possible with lane diets) for bicycle traffic. Signage advising drivers that bikes may use the whole lane would educate drivers and alleviate some pressure on cyclists.

Open Letter to the Trumbull, CT Police Commission

January 10, 2017

Chief Michael Lombardo
Trumbull Police Department
158 Edison Rd
Trumbull, CT 06611

Dear Chief Lombardo,

Last month I addressed the Police Commission and they encouraged me to share my comments with you directly. I am a runner and a cyclist but I can't do either as much as I would like because I regularly feel threatened by the drivers in our town. Not wanting to die on the streets of Trumbull keeps me from enjoying my right to use our roads.

During the week I run a 3 mile loop through my neighborhood. On the weekends I occasionally run (or ride) to the Pequonnock trail, run along the trail and then run back to my house. Not a run (or ride) goes by that I do not feel threatened by a driver speeding past me or drifting toward one side of the road or another, unyielding and seemingly oblivious to my right to be on the road. I often have to literally jump out of the way to avoid being killed by my fellow residents. Every morning on my way to work I pass other vulnerable users: dog walkers, students walking to their bus stop or (occasionally) to school, runners and walkers out for exercise, and cyclists heading to work. Add to that list the people who use the trail but have to drive there and you will see I am not the only pedestrian in our town.

I am also not alone in feeling unsafe on our streets. Last fall I ran a (very unscientific) poll on a local social media site, asking who had walked or cycled to one of our new pedestrian-oriented villages, Madison Village or Long Hill Green. The response was nearly unanimous: no one had walked or cycled to either place, and all responses included remarks about being too dangerous or unsafe (one exception: a woman remarked her husband walked to Madison Village once. Although, according to her, he was "crazy"). Not one person would allow their children to go to either destination. A P&Z commissioner commented in a public meeting that crossing Madison from the overflow parking lot at Best Edibles was "impossible." We don't allow our children to walk to school because it is "too dangerous."

If there was a place in town where residents were afraid to leave their homes in pursuit of legal activities because they were afraid of another neighbor's threatening actions, we would reasonably expect the police to intervene and return safety and order to that neighborhood. Trumbull has pedestrian-oriented areas where the residents are afraid to be pedestrians. This is a problem that requires police intervention to ensure the safety of all legal road users, including and especially, vulnerable users.

If residents don't feel safe walking or biking to reach these economic and social neighborhood centers, they will either have to drive a car, exacerbating traffic and congestion, or they won't go at all. Neither of these results align with the vision for those locations. This is not what our citizens want, this is not the image the town wants, and this is not sustainable.

The danger is not just in our imaginations. After years of steady national decline, 2015 saw a 10% increase in pedestrian fatalities (13% for cyclists). 2016 estimates are ranging from 12 to 15 percent higher than 2015 because there are more distracted drivers driving more miles, conflicting with more people exercising their legal rights to be pedestrians. While we have been fortunate in Trumbull, the clash between automobile traffic and pedestrians is likely to get worse in 2017 with the completion of the Pequonnock River Valley Trail (PRVT) through Trumbull and planned extensions of the trail to the Long Hill Green, the Town Hall area and through Trumbull Center. As the local traffic authority it is your responsibility to provide infrastructure that both protects and encourages pedestrians.

But the reason to act is not just because pedestrians need protecting. I encourage you to act because vulnerable users are good for our community and we want to encourage more of them. They represent healthy citizens, provide the foot traffic our stores need to be successful, make our town sustainable and in the long run increase the value of our homes and businesses.

I offered a short list of actionable items at the meeting. Deputy Chief Kirby suggested I enumerate those (see attached). Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions or need clarifications please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Shelby LeVino

Pedestrian's Hierarchy of Needs

Why Walk

Walk, run or cycle. People who regularly exercise know their benefits: it makes them feel better and it makes them happier. The Surgeon General has recommended 30 minutes of exercise daily for adults (60 for children), yet most Americans do not get enough exercise. Why?

One reason is time (and effort). Exercising is hard and it takes time from our already busy days. But it is not just time that keeps people rooted to their couches. Choosing to be a pedestrian, the simplest form of exercise, means fighting our incumbent car-first infrastructure nearly every step of the way.

As a society, if we want to reap the many social, economic, health and environmental benefits of people power, then we need to create an environment where pedestrians are not just tolerated, but encouraged. Fortunately, the costs of active transportation infrastructure are comparatively low (especially if included in a project from the beginning) when compared with automobile costs, while the benefits extend far beyond just the individual walker or cyclist.

What do Pedestrians Need?

For the most part pedestrian needs are simple: they want to reach their destination without being killed. But the more welcome pedestrians feel, the more they will choose to walk, run or cycle. Making a community pedestrian friendly requires several considerations, which can be described by borrowing Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This lists pedestrian's needs, starting with the most basic and necessary.

1. Achievable - Corresponding to Maslow's physiological needs, if a person is not capable of walking, if the desired route is not available (i.e. there is a foot of snow on the ground) or there are insurmountable barriers (such as crossing a highway or river) then any pedestrian activity is not feasible.
2. Safe - Once an viable route is selected, one of the next considerations is safety. If I follow a route from A to B will I be safe? Is the route safe from external hazards. Are there sidewalks and crosswalks along the way? Are there protected bike lanes? Will drivers expect to see me and is there space for them to react in a safe and predictable manner? What is the traffic volume, speed differential and proximity between car traffic and pedestrian traffic?
   
   This is why programs like Complete Streets and Safe Routes to School have been so important. This is why so many communities are creating multi-use paths that are totally separated from traffic.
   
   Personal safety extends beyond tension with vehicular traffic. In some areas there is a threat of violent crime. Dark, lonely routes at night through seedy areas should be avoided. If I choose to drive to the start of my walking route, will my car and possessions still be there when I return?
   
   Many pedestrian trips never happen because no safe route exists.
   
   
3. Convenient - Can I get to my route easily. Is it available when I want to use it? Ideally, every front door is a trail head...but that is not the reality. In our town we have a beautiful, wildly popular rail trail with the sad irony that most, if not all, users drive to reach it. The overflow lot is across a speedy town artery and although there is a crosswalk, many drivers fail to see and therefore stop, for people waiting to cross.
   
   Cyclists know many great routes that are only rideable in the early hours of Sunday morning, before drivers wake up and stumble out to get their iced flabbaccinos and pancakes.
   
   
4. Rewarding - Most people who walk, run or ride realize that the act is its own reward but to engage more people either the route or the destination should provide a reward. Our rail trail ranges along a river and through a beautiful valley. For many, the time spent close to nature, in a safe, quiet, car-free environment where they can chat with friends, or use the time to reflect on something or nothing is all the reward they need. But, not every trip needs to be through pristine woods or include scenic vistas.
   
   Riding a bike to a desirable destination such as a coffee shop, restaurant, drug store, even work, is a reward. Taken to its extreme, the reward could be as simple as not being penalized for choosing to be a pedestrian: hostile traffic, no sidewalks and crosswalks, no place to lock your bike, etc.
   
   There are other, less obvious ways that walking can be rewarded. Pokemon Go is a video game that not only encourages walking, it requires it. Step counters, Fitness Challenges and other "gamifications" have quantified activities in a way that motivates users to not break the streak.
   
   
5. Repeatable - No action can become a habit if it is not repeatable. If a user wants to walk again tomorrow, will they be able to? Will they enjoy the same success as on previous trips? Ciclovias and popup bike lanes are great, but they are not habit forming. Is the route only rideable on the weekends? Is it only available seasonally? Are leaves removed in the fall? Is the snow cleared in the winter? Are limbs and branches quickly removed after a storm?
   
   
6. Multipurpose - One size does not fit all. The biker's needs are different from the walker's needs. Routes and infrastructure should accommodate all activities and users with any ability.
   
   
7. Comfortable - Is the route accommodating? Does it offer physical niceties such as water and sanitary services? Are there benches to stop and rest? Are there picnic areas? Is it covered with tree canopy to avoid the summer heat and does it offer covered shelters to wait out a flash thunderstorm? Are users made to feel like this is a place where they are welcomed or just tolerated?
   

Pedestrian's Hierarchy of Needs

The Pedestrian Hierarchy of Needs

The more a community provides elements from the above list, the further they move up the hierarchy, the more walkable a community becomes. A more walkable community will encourage more people to get out and be pedestrians, and more pedestrians means fewer cars, a healthier community and a happier society.

Planning & Zoning remarks RE: 960 White Plains Road

On July 20th, 2016 Trumbull Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting. One item on the docket was, Application #16-18 Brinsmade Associates, LLC Special Permit and site plan approval to construct of a 21,000 sf one-story retail building, including two drive throughs at 960 White Plains Road.

The following are my remarks, read before the Trumbull Planning & Zoning Commission, regarding the application.*

---

Introduction

Good evening. My name is Shelby LeVino and I represent Trumbull Walks, a pedestrian advocacy group that believes that making Trumbull a better place to walk, run and ride will have positive long term environmental, social and economic benefits for the town of Trumbull and its residents.

We know that Trumbull is a community of walkers -- you need only look at the Tait Road parking lot on a weekend day, which is full much of the time. These people have a strong preference for walking. We know this because many drive to the trail just to get out and walk. They choose to walk along the trail because it is safe, rewarding, convenient and approachable.

These are not just pedestrians, these are regular visitors of the trail, who will become regular customers of the proposed property. They include families with children, young adults and people my senior (I hesitate to call them "older").

I say "they will be customers" but only if they can safely and easily get across the street.

A Vision for Downtown

The complaint I hear most often from residents is that Trumbull lacks a downtown. But what does that mean?

Residents want a destination. A place where they get out of their cars and walk. A convenient place where they feel safe and are rewarded for their efforts. A place with destinations that are connected and approachable.

Ask residents to close their eyes and describe what downtown looks like to them. They use words like "sidewalks," "shade trees," "park benches," "open spaces" and "shopping". Perhaps they mention ice cream cones and chatting with friends on the corner.

They are describing mixed-use villages with networks of interconnected corridors that are safe and accessible. A place where they can "eat, pray, love." But also where they can work, learn, sleep and shop. And eat (we like to eat).

I have never heard anyone include the words "strip mall" -- not even "colonial strip mall." There is nothing wrong with a strip mall, it is just not the right look and feel for downtown Trumbull.

They want a Norman Rockwell Main Street, a downtown where they can park and walk, shop, say hello to friends or just sit and relax. They want a "Village" feel like Fairfield, New Canaan and South Norwalk have. Those towns have buildings close enough to the street to be approachable on foot, housing a variety of retail, commercial, residential and of course food.

Show people a picture of Newtown, near the flagpole, and a picture of a strip mall and ask them which is more welcoming...

And Trumbull could have that if this commission were to reject the current proposal but encourage this developer to return with a plan that merely flips the site layout. Bring the stores to the curb, make them combined use, and put the cars -- and car activity -- in the rear away from the pedestrians. Offer the front of the stores to the street with wide sidewalks, benches, shade trees and bike racks, welcoming and encouraging customers who arrive on foot. This is the formula for a vibrant downtown, which is what our neighbors want, and the foot traffic that retailers need.

I ask this commission and the developer to work together to literally and figuratively make this property the cornerstone for the new Trumbull Village.

Specific Site Questions, Concerns and Problems

The traffic consultant spoke about the additional auto traffic and its impact on the intersection. But he did not mention how much foot traffic will come from the trail or how the applicant has planned to accommodate those pedestrians. How will this increased volume of pedestrians activating the walk signals at the cross walks affect traffic at the Daniels Farm and White Plains Road intersection? I would ask the commission to require a multi modal transit analysis that considers pedestrian, bike and transit traffic and not just cars.

The current lack of pedestrian infrastructure at Church Hill and Grandview puts our citizens at great risk: it would be much safer if there was a pedestrian crossing light at that intersection. I know there have been accidents at that intersection, there was one just the other day. I have personally witnessed young adults in the crosswalk nearly get run over because one lane of cars stops but the other does not. I have stood there waiting to cross while car after car fails to stop. This is not pedestrian friendly and it is going to get worse. 

The existing sidewalk is too narrow and too close to the road to be safe. Walkers on the sidewalk have cars driving literally inches away. The speed limit is 35, dropping from 40, and we know that means drivers are probably traveling closer to 45 or 50. Inches from pedestrians. Please require the applicant to widen the sidewalk and move it away from the street, making it compliant with the most pedestrian-friendly standards. It would also be beneficial to offer a shorter, direct path from the existing Grandview lot directly to the stores.

In fact, why not retain the lot and encourage food trucks to park there on the weekends. This would offer a huge reward for pedestrians to cross the street, bringing them closer to being customers.

How does the site design accommodate bicycle traffic? Through the existing motor vehicle lanes? I would ask the applicant to describe the traffic flow for a family with younger kids on bikes. How will they get in, get through the lot, and park those bikes? Once parked how will those pedestrians get to the stores?

Please require the applicant to maintain the 25 foot building to parking lot minimum. The current proposal of five feet is simply not enough room, especially when you account for bicycles and bicycle traffic from the trail.

Require a fourth crosswalk and pedestrian signal at the lot entrance to allow pedestrians to cross White Plains Road safely (currently only three crossings have marked crosswalks and pedestrian lights).

I thank the commission for their patience tonight and their efforts every night.

---

* Comissioner Silber raised many of the points I intended to raise (and some that I missed). I edited my original remarks drastically to try to eliminate redundancy. The above is what I would have like to read had I been able to follow all of my scribbled changes.