Traffic safety emerged as a primary topic, with concerns over the proposed development’s impact on the already busy intersection at Route 202/206. The traffic engineer presented findings based on pre-pandemic data, which were described as conservative, to assess the development’s impact on traffic flow. The engineer expressed confidence in the sight distances at the proposed intersection, asserting that they were more than adequate for safe vehicle movements. However, the development will still require an access permit from the Department of Transportation (DOT), which will involve further review.

Despite assurances from traffic experts that the proposed design would maintain safe operations, board members and residents voiced concerns about the potential for increased traffic and accidents. The absence of existing sidewalks and the high speed limit on Route 202/206 compounded these worries, with the board considering deferring the sidewalk issue until site plan approval, citing state regulatory considerations.

Board members questioned the assumptions behind the traffic analysis, particularly the use of standard residential demographics instead of age-restricted data, which could potentially lead to an underestimation of traffic volumes. Experts noted that age-restricted data might result in lower traffic volumes, acknowledging that the projections were based on established data sources. However, some residents challenged the logic behind the estimated number of vehicle trips during peak hours.

The discussion also addressed the proposed addition of a left-turn lane for northbound traffic, which was identified as a critical safety feature. The lane would separate turning vehicles from through traffic. The board sought confirmation on whether the DOT would mandate this feature, given existing traffic patterns. Concerns about traffic backups affecting the development’s entrance during peak hours were also raised, with calculations indicating that the entrance is approximately 1,000 feet from a nearby traffic light, allowing space for queuing vehicles without blocking access.

The board explored the relationship between traffic volumes and safety, with experts clarifying that while trip generation numbers could increase, it does not necessarily equate to increased danger. They emphasized that safety standards are based on existing conditions and driver behavior rather than sheer volume. However, board members and residents expressed frustration over the lack of clear numerical thresholds for what constitutes an acceptable level of service and safety, highlighting a disconnect between technical explanations and community concerns.

The consultant provided data from traffic counts taken before the pandemic, noting that while travel patterns have largely returned to normal, volumes remain lower than pre-pandemic levels. Despite this, board members were concerned about the analysis’s focus on peak hours and the exclusion of mid-afternoon and Saturday traffic, which they argued could provide a fuller picture of traffic dynamics.