Residents, officals frustrated by Village speed limits

Pin It

Concerns continue to mount over speeds in Unionville village, but state law limits options

By Mike McGann, Editor, The Times

Residents of Unionville village are asking the township to renew efforts to slow drivers along Route 82 to make the area safer.

EAST MARLBOROUGH — Driver speed and some questions about paving in the Unionville Village section of the township dominated Monday night’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

Although residents brought complaints about paving near the intersection of Rt. 162 and Rt. 82 as well as chip and stone used on William Thomas Drive, most of the discussion was focused on renewed concerns about drivers speeding along Routes 82, 162 and 842 in the township, and that hazard it represents to residents of the immediate area.

Currently, the posted speed limit on Rt. 82 in the village is 35 MPH, while the speed limit on the other two roadways varies but is as high as 45 MPH.

Residents asked the board of Supervisors to renew efforts to lower the speed limits on the roadway.

Although the township owns the roadway, it remains a state route and is subject to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) regulation. As such, it is problematic for the township to change the speed limit, without a study showing drivers are already going slower than the speed limit, something of a Catch-22 situation, which they acknowledge.

Technically, the township could lower the speed limit, but any tickets issued for speeding could be challenged in court and thrown out as being invalid — for failing to meet state criteria. The state legislation governing the laws was intended to prevent municipalities from creating revenue enhancing “speed traps” — a common issue in the 1970s.

A spring speed survey suggested that the average speed in the area was in the neighborhood of 38 MPH, but a second study is expected this fall.

“I’m not saying it’s a good standard,” Supervisors board chair Cuyler Walker said. “But it is the legal standard.”

Jack Greenwood, a resident of the village who has been vocal about the speed of vehicles and previously stated concerns about the damage done to the roadway by heavy truck use, suggested that instead of changing the speed limit, the township explore other options for “traffic calming” such as raised crosswalks. Township Manager Jane Laslo said that local municipalities have been going away from raised crosswalks because of liability concerns, caused by damage to vehicles.

Township Supervisor Richard “Buzz” Hannum, also a resident of the Unionville Village area, said he agreed that speed is a problem and that he himself has had concerns while out walking with his young children.

Other residents noted the frequent failure of motorists to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk between Hood’s and the Unionville Recreation Association fields, even, apparently, a State Police trooper.  Residents at the meeting said the trooper not only failed to yield, but then allegedly verbally upbraided the pedestrian, allegedly Douglas Mooberry, the chair of the township’s Historic & Architectural Review Board, when he complained about it. Mooberry could not be reached to confirm the story as of press time.

A freestanding sign that had been placed in the crosswalk when sporting events are taking place at the URA complex was damaged by being hit repeatedly by drivers and is in need of replacement, residents said. They also suggested that signs are needed north and south of the complex, as motorists are not even aware of it until they are top of it.

Mary Beth Brown, owner of Catherine’s Restaurant as well as a resident of the immediate area, said she contacted the office of State Rep. Chris Ross seeking help with the matter, but received no response. Brown said she was rear-ended while driving her children to Unionville Elementary — she was stopped to make a left turn into the school when another motorist sped up behind her and hit her car so hard it was totalled.

Township officials acknowledge the issue but note two issues: the difficulty in getting state officials to work with them to make the road safer and the fiscal limits the township has in making the roadway safer.

Laslo noted how many years and attempts it took to get the four-way stop signs approved for the intersection of Routes 162 and 82 and that the township has been trying to get the speed limit lowered from 45 MPH in front of Unionville High School and Charles S. Patton Middle School for four decades. Ironically, she noted, that PennDOT agreed to lower the speed limit to 40 on Route 82 south of Route 926, but wouldn’t budge on the stretch north, between Route 926 and the roundabout.

There isn’t money to fund stricter enforcement of speed limits, as the township’s small police department — a total of two officers — must cover the entire township. And even assuming that PennDOT approved changes beyond speed limits, the cost of major improvements to the road exceeds what the township has to spend right now.

Township officials — along with the township’s Safety Committee, which was recently reactivated — said they hoped to engage PennDOT officials in discussions on how they could make the entire crossroads area where Routes 82, 162 and 842 meet safer for both pedestrians and drivers.

PDF Creator    Send article as PDF   
Tags: PennDOT, Route 162, Route 82, Route 842, speed limits, unionville, Unionville Elementary School, village
Subscribe to Comments RSS Feed in this post

5 Responses

  1. I have also been amazed and saddened by the rules that prevent the lowering of these speed limits. We have had tragedy in front of the Middle/High School Complex, we’ve had accidents and near fatal pedestrian events in the village of Unionville, and the only place PennDot sees fit to lower speeds is south of all these activities. As the traffice for students, pedestrians and commmunity members increases in and out of our school complexes each year, we need to lower the speeds to a more responsible level. I urge everyone to contact Senator Pilleggi’s and Representative Ross’ offices and encourage action on this vital saftey issue for our community.

    • I thought there is an active school zone in front of the two schools. Is the correct or am I mistaken? Also, how many accidents have occured in the area in front of the schools? All of these factors are important as well.

  2. My last name is Greenwood not Greenway. I would like to point out that this article does not accurately portray what transpired in the discussions about speed limits in Unionville. Also, some very pertinent comments by residents were omitted. I would encourage any resident who is concerned about safety and quality of life along Rt. 82 to attend Township Supervisors meetings.

    • Sorry for the error on the name. However, the rest of the meeting account is an accurate description of the meeting and the proceedings.

  3. The process to change the speed limit in PA is usually very fair. People need to understand how the process works before they criticize it. As I said once before, Penn Dot has warrants that have to be met before you may change the speed limit, add a stop sign or do any number of traffic related tasks. I worked in a traffic unit for 5 years and I whole heatedly understand the frustration that exists. However, many times when you complete a traffic study for speed, the speed limit actually goes up. The moral of story is be careful what you wish for my friend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*

 

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera