Traffic process has been hijacked


To the Editor:

The process for handling village traffic issues since FABGC took over the Village Board puts residents at a disadvantage.

In past years, residents would bring their concerns to a POA, the POAs had a traffic committee that would work with the police commissioner and the Traffic Commission to find solutions. The requesting resident would have to gather local support for the request and the POA traffic committee would review speed, accident and school bus data provided by the GCPD. The POA traffic committee would invite the resident to a POA meeting to discuss their request and we would then vote to support the request or not. This would then be moved to the Village Traffic Commission for review and discussion with the resident who made the request, concerned area residents, the police commissioner, the DPW rep and the POA traffic representative. After a full review of the data and discussion the Traffic Commission would ultimately make the final decision.  I know this because I was the lead on the EPOA Traffic Committee for two years and became familiar with the traffic protocols in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and spent many hours reviewing requests, visiting the areas, recommending solutions and speaking with the residents.

Today, because most FABGC trustees do not share information with the POAs, there is no consistent mechanism for communication. The Traffic Commission seems to be the only one to suggest traffic control measures with little or no resident outreach or input. An example is the recent request to add a traffic signal on Clinton Road at Garden Street. I know of no review of speed or accident data that was reviewed prior to that request being submitted to Nassau County. Was there outreach to the nearby homeowners on Clinton, Garden, Pine and Poplar? Any thought to the increase in noise and pollution when cars, trucks and buses stop and start at a new traffic light at Garden Street?

Traffic continues to be a top concern for Garden City residents, but under FABGC leadership, the process has been hijacked. The stakes looking ahead could be even higher as Gov. Hochul’s zoning plans and the Nassau Coliseum development threaten to further increase village traffic. Changes to Village leadership is needed – otherwise, residents will continue to be left out. Vote for Judy Courtney, candidate for Mayor, who has pledged to reestablish the traffic committees to assist with resident traffic requests and issues.

Steve Ilardi

13 responses to “Traffic process has been hijacked”

  1. jcantwell says:

    You failed to mention that it was “hijacked” to create a village-wide traffic plan with citizen advisory committees from all over the village because the old process was ineffective at actually managing traffic across the village.
    www.gcnews.com/articles/173738/

    • Then why wasn’t the Garden St traffic light request pushed to the traffic study for review and citizen input rather than immediately sent to the county as an ask? What resident outreach occurred and what traffic and accident data were reviewed?

      • As a tax paying resident, the thought that I had to go to an unelected group, not part of the Village government to “vote” on a concern I have over a life and death matter is ridiculous. The fact that 4 POAs each trying to stay relevant that has prevented the village from taking a village wide approach is worse. Mr. Illardi is the best example of why the POA stop sign by stop sign was unworkable. With a potential Casino and a heightened need for a village wide approach, it would be a disaster.

        • Facts are many traffic concerns were addressed for many years through the process that was in place that included resident outreach in the affected areas. The traffic study began as a privately funded study in the Central section by a member of the CPOA when there was not satisfaction with how the village was addressing traffic and speeding conditions on and around Cathedral Ave. The village than took that study and expanded it to the current village wide study. The current traffic study already had several volunteers from the east so I didn’t join. I’ve been involved in village board and other meetings for over 15 years and never hesitated to voice my opinions so I don’t need you telling me to get involved in citizen committees. Residents individually and through the POAs have raised concerns about the humps and bus/truck traffic in Clinton for a decade and the village, while they have worked with NC to get this addressed always stated that since it was a county road the village was very limited it what the village could implement. Learning from NC at the Clinton Rd. Reconstruction meeting that the village does has rights as far as truck restrictions was news to many. The question should go back to the village as to why that was either not known or not acted on. POA didn’t drive traffic we as well as residents were part of the overall process. Perhaps check with the Village staff, Administrator, Police Commissioner and past DPW heads as well as past Traffic Commissions as to the value and work we added.

      • Join one of the Citizenry Advisory Committee (CAC) and get involved. Open to all.

      • Join one of the Citizenry Advisory Committee (CAC) and get involved. Open to all.

  2. I have no bias POA versus FABGC – and won’t even pretend to know the history / what all the silly fighting is about. I just see the terrible traffic conditions that exist throughout the Village and would like to see meaningful change.
    I agree the light may not be the best idea, but the fact that the Village was not even aware that they had the ability to enact any restrictions on Clinton Rd. (Until the County bluntly confirmed the Village had these powers on Monday at the GC Casino) makes me wonder…There are residents that have been pleading for relief here for 10+ years…

Leave a Reply