City Council

City of Salem, Massachusetts “Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A ss. 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.” The City Council Committee on Ordinances Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted with the Committee of the Whole____________________________________________________________________________________ met in the Council Chamber on _Monday June 23, 2025 _____________ at ______6:00_______P.M. for the purpose of discussing the matters(s) listed below. Notice of this meeting was posted on __May 14, 2025__ at ___ 12:55 P.M._ (This meeting is being recorded) ATTENDANCE OLLA – Hapworth (chair), Cohen, Jerzylo & Morsillo. COW – Merkl, Watson-Felt, Harvey & Prosniewski. From the city – Christina Hodge, Assistant Transportation Director, Lieutenant Dave Tucker. ABSENT WERE: OLLA – Varela. COW – Stott & Davis. SUBJECT(S) #437 No Turn on Red Hapworth – We are discussing updating the No Turn on Red Ordinance. We currently have intersections that are signed but have no ordinance. We have intersections that have an ordinance, but no sign, and we have intersections that have signs and ordinances, and some that have neither. Hodge – After many months of research and several meetings, we have a proposed revised ordinance for No Turn on Red. The slides so the number of accidents at each intersection. We reviewed intersections all along Highland Ave. and downtown. There was one change at First St and Traders Way due to recently painted bike lanes. Morsillo – In the meetings last year, we reviewed everything except the downtown. I think we should focus on downtown for this meeting since C. Watson-Felt and Cohen are here. Watson-Felt - Can you discuss why you are proposing the recommendation based on the data that you collected? Was it the visibility or accidents for each intersection where you are recommending a change? Hodge - Starting at the top of this image, the intersection as you travel over the bridge to meet the bypass road. It currently is signed no right turn on red, but it is not in the ordinance. This is also a double lane approach from a safety perspective and there is a visibility issue. We would recommend keeping the signage and add it into the ordinance to make it enforceable. The next intersection is Bridge at Webb. The recommendation is at the Webb Street approach to the intersection to add both a sign and language, restricting right turn on red here and then in the northbound approach on Bridge Street to add what currently exists to the ordinance. On Webb Street heading eastbound, we recommend adding signage and ordinance. No right turn on red in the opposite direction, heading westbound towards Bridge Street. We recommend no change to what is currently there and then southbound from Sotelo Lane. We recommend no change. Back over to Bridge Street where the Bypass Road meets Bridge Street, where it heads down into the business district. Currently there is no change from the Bypass, no change from Bridge Street, we would recommend adding signage and ordinance language at the approach from the apartment building complex driveway, which is a signalized approach, and then no change in the northbound or outbound direction on Bridge Street, heading towards the Bypass Road. Tucker – At Boston Street and Proctor/Goodhue, the ordinance was poorly worded, so we are recommending that it be repealed and then added back in, so it is clearer. Watson-Felt - Point of clarification. Let's take a step back, because I think it makes sense for us to just orient ourselves to what we're reading here. On section 1, we have repealing language, and on section 2, we have inserting language. It would be helpful, in addition to my request to make sure I understand what the source of your recommendation as well as the reasoning behind your recommendation, to also understand which of these go together. Some of them are paired. On some of them we're taking something out in section 1 and then putting it back in corrected or changed in section 2. I've only just recently looked at the Boston Street one here because it's honestly not entirely in my ward, but the Boston Street at Bridge Street & Goodhue/Proctor. Does that correlate the repealing language? Does that correlate to the inserting language? As we work through this set by set. I think that would be helpful for everyone to understand when we are taking something out and when we are putting something in. I just want to make sure where they are paired and that we're thinking about these holistically. And we understand what it is that we're approving. Hodge - For the Boston Street. The 1st 2 paragraphs would be removed and then inserted the 1st paragraph of the insertion section, so it would take 2 existing somewhat poorly written ordinances into one cohesive intersection. Flint Street next. This is new, not removing. No change on Bridge Street heading southbound. No change on Flint St. heading towards Bridge St, from Mack Park. From the east heading west, we recommend adding signage and ordinance language. On Bridge Street, coming from the south, heading northbound, we look to add to the ordinance. Hapworth - So just to be clear. Coming off Flint headed north on Bridge, we're adding an ordinance and a sign, or it’s proposed to add an ordinance sign and coming off a Bridge and up Flint turning right, we're just adding the ordinance because it's already signed. Watson-Felt – Why would you prohibit taking a right onto Flint? Is there a sightline issue? Hodge – There is a bike lane there that we would be accommodating. Bridge Street at Washington Street, heading in the eastbound direction on Bridge Street. We recommend adding a sign. It is currently in the ordinance and not signed. Then on Washington Street, at that approach it is not in the ordinance, but it is signed. Tucker – That sign to proceed right on red after stop wouldn’t be changed that on the slip lane from Bridge St. onto Washington St. Hodge- Colonial Road. No changes on Jefferson Ave. northbound or southbound, no change on Dove at the hospital side of Jefferson Avenue, but we are proposing to add signage at Colonial Road, where it meets Jefferson, and that currently is in the ordinance, but not signed. It appears in section 1 where we are repealing ordinance; the second from the bottom, it is at Colonial Road and the hospital entrance, westbound Colonial Road onto northbound Jefferson Avenue. Tucker – The ordinance refers to Jefferson, but it should be Colonial Rd. It is being repealed to correct that error. That is a no turn on red because of the sightlines and where the sidewalk is. There have been 4 accidents, but they weren’t because of a right on red. Prosniewski – I heard that the intersection at Jefferson and Colonial may be revamped altogether since there is so much more traffic with the hospital emergency entrance and Amazon. It seems necessary with the additional traffic. Hodge – Yes, we were working to redesign the whole corridor from Colonial to Willson but since there was a pedestrian that was struck and killed at Jefferson and Willson, we put that on hold to focus on just that intersection which is now complete. We may go back and look at the rest of that area, but it hasn’t been pushed forward yet. There is also some discussion that the contemplated South Salem Rail stop may tie into some changes in that area as well. There is also a Jefferson Ave study that is going to be underway with the Planning Dept., and I think it will be part to that study. On to Derby Street. This is over at the corner of the South Harbor Garage, just to orient folks in the northbound direction on Congress. We are proposing to add signage and ordinance to have no right turn on red at the approach from Derby Street we are proposing the same thing; ordinance and signage on the opposite side of the intersection. Then coming southbound at Hawthorne Boulevard, we're proposing to add ordinance language because there's currently a sign in place. Jerzylo – I have a problem with the northbound Congress St. onto eastbound Derby St. There is a lot of traffic that comes out of Shetland Park, and I think it would be better to have a right on red after stop instead of no turn on red. There isn’t a visibility issue at that intersection and there are a lot of people that go right so the traffic will be backed up, especially in September and October. Merkl – There is a lot of pedestrian traffic as well as a bike lane at that intersection and there is a visitor center which has increased the number of pedestrians so I think that a no turn on red sign would be appropriate. I would also like to see some continuity at the intersections. Watson-Felt – How did the Transportation Commission decide on this change? And would you ever consider a temporary no turn on red sign during the heaviest tourism season? Hodge – Mostly, it is because of the increase pedestrian traffic because of the visitor center and the parking garage. There was a lot of discussion around this change, but it was decided it would be best to have no turn on red all 4 corners. And we would not put up a temporary sign, because that would be too confusing. Harvey – I agree that a right turn after stop would keep the traffic moving but has there been any discussion about the timing of the lights? If we are going to add a bunch of no turn on red, then the timing of the lights should be looked at and addressed. Tucker – We have not had any discussions about upgrading the intersection or timing of the lights. We did look into a no turn on red sign that can be activated when a pedestrian is at the intersection but they are very expensive but that might be something that we could consider in the future. Jerzylo – I think we should consider one of those signs instead of no turn on red. Morsillo – There are a lot of pedestrians at that intersection so I think we should try the no turn on red and if it doesn’t work out, then we can change it back. I think we should try to get those signs that come on when the crosswalk signal is on. There are many places in town that could use that sign. Derby St. is supposed to get new lights that are supposed to talk to each other to keep the traffic flowing. Cohen – I think the pedestrians should be the first concern, so I think a no turn on red sign would be appropriate. Prosniewski – I think there should be a no turn on red too. Even though there haven’t been any incidents there, with the amount of traffic and the number of pedestrians, we shouldn’t wait until something happens to fix it. Watson-Felt – The right on red after stop is, theoretically an option, correct? Tucker – Putting up a right on red after stop is just a reminder of the law, it wouldn’t be a change in the ordinance. Jerzylo – I would like to make a motion to remove the northbound from Congress St onto eastbound Derby St. from this section. Hapworth – I don’t see a second. I would second it but I don’t think we have the votes to remove it so we will move on to Essex St. Hodge - Moving on to Essex Street intersection with Boston Street. So, this is currently in the form of 2 ordinances separated to indicate the driveway approach at 407 Essex, and then also southbound to westbound Boston Street. It is a confusing roundabout way to describe an intersection. What we are proposing to add, after removing those 2 sentences, is intersection with Boston Street and 407 Essex Street driveway from southbound Essex Street to westbound Boston Street, and from westbound, 407 Essex Street driveway to northbound Essex Street, right turn on red prohibited. So, it's not changing anything. It's just simplifying the language. This is just a simplification of the language that we have here. Essex Street, intersection with Hawthorne Boulevard and Washington Square, West. So, this is the intersection right outside of the Hawthorne Hotel. Watson-Felt - This is a repealing of item number 3 in Section one, which correlates 2. I've lettered them all in Roman numerals. This is Number 10 on the dropdown Essex traffic control legend at Hawthorne, in Washington Square. Right? Those are the 2 that go together. Hodge - So this is additional messy language. Yes, and we are proposing southbound to add the ordinance and sign the Essex Street approach. It is currently in the ordinance, but we would need to add signage, and then same with the northbound approach. It is in the ordinance, but there's no signage here. The prohibition is due to the amount of pedestrian traffic as well as the outdoor seating during the season. Next, we are proposing on Essex Street at Flint St, the northeast bound direction to add ordinance language and a sign at that approach no changes to the other approaches on Flint Street. This would be the right turn onto Flint St. towards Chestnut. Tucker – This is because of sightlines with the building built right up against the street it is very difficult to see, and we don’t think that many people make that turn so it won’t result in a traffic issue. Hodge – Essex intersection with North Street and Summer Streets. This is at the Witch House. At this location, in the southbound approach at North Street we are proposing to add ordinance, language and sign. and then in the northbound approach, adding ordinance language where there currently already is a sign. Hapworth - There's already assigned at Jerry's adding an ordinance there and then adding an ordinance and sign at the witch house. Hodge - This is the location that several people like residents, have reached out to our department asking for this. North Street at Federal Street is right here, where the ramp meets North Street. So from Federal Street approach alongside the courthouses we are proposing to add ordinance, language, and signage. On the opposite side of the intersection there currently is signage, and we are just adding ordinance language. And this is a location just to give a little bit of background. there are several folks that do take a right turn to continue down North Street. There is also the option to take a little bit of a skewed jog to continue on to the ramp, to travel down to Bridge Street. Some folks assume that everyone is taking a right, and they have been, or at least we've been made aware of my department that people will beep if someone is in the 1st spot in the queue and is not moving, but they're waiting appropriately to travel through in a straight movement through the intersection. So, I believe, even when I 1st started. This was something that the mayor's office reached out to us about. So, it's been a topic of conversation for a while now, Watson-Felt – There is a timing issue that this intersection that needs to be fixed for a no turn on red to work. So many people wait and wait and then just get frustrated and go through it. Is there a sensor at that intersection, because it can be a full 6 or 7 minute wait for the light to change. Hodge – Yes, there is an inground sensor, but I think there might be a problem with it because we have had complaints about it. Hapworth – Moving on to Washington St. at New Derby St. Cohen – First, I would like to put out for discussion northbound on Washington and eastbound on New Derby. I think there are good sightlines there now but if we are going to put a 10-minute tour bus drop zone stop, then I think we should consider the no turn on red sign because if there is a bus there, it will be difficult to get around. I think the most dangerous intersection is going east on Norman St. and turning right onto Washington St. There are always a lot of pedestrians there and no one looks before they make that turn. Hapworth – When I think of this ordinance, that is the spot that I always think of first. I think C. Morsillo brought it up when we first started discussing making these changes. Can you talk about why it is not included in the proposed changes? Tucker – The number one reason is the backup of traffic. The sightlines are decent. There are probably improvements that can be made, but most of it was because of the traffic flow. We do have the box there where Margin St. comes in that we try to keep clear. Morsillo – This is the most obnoxious intersection in Salem. People don’t care. They are boxing the pedestrians in and are constantly turning when the crosswalk sign is on. This corner really needs a no turn on red. Merkl – I strongly agree with C. Cohen and C. Morsillo. Watson-Felt – I agree too. It is important to note that part of it is for continuity, so we can increase signage at that intersection. We all know that it is the worst intersection in Salem and part of the problem is that it is so big. I have talked to Lieutenant Tucker and Chief Miller. I know the commission has discussed it. It doesn’t seem like there is any solution except having multiple officers present which is not sustainable. I don’t know that just a no right on red would help but something needs to be done. Prosniewski – We all agree that it is an intersection from hell and adding the rotary has just made it worse. The rotary hasn’t worked since day one. It is a major intersection in the city. What will the domino effect be with anything that we do? What’s the collateral damage if we make the lights no turn on red? Have you ever done an impact study or traffic study? If there is any intersection in Salem that should have cameras, it is this one and I don’t understand why the state will not allow them. We aren’t experts in traffic so we should have a professional study done before we change anything at that intersection. Cohen – Although I agree that there should be a study done, I think we should try making it no turn on red and see how it goes. Motion to add the language Norman Street, eastbound to Washington Street, southbound, no turn on red. Seconded by Morsillo. Motion carries 3-1. Hapworth – Moving on to Washington St at Mill St and Canal St. Tucker – On three of the four corners, we would add a no turn on red sign except the turn off Mill St. heading south on Canal St. The recommendation is to leave that as is and allow right turn on red but add a sign that says right turn after stop. Cohen – I am glad that you are keeping that corner as is. The intersection past The Babe going south on Washington St. has a right turn after stop sign and although that intersection is very confusing that sign seems to work. I know that we aren’t talking about that intersection, but I wanted to mention it because the sign works there. I think if we add a right on red after stop sign at the corner of Washington and Washington next to the hotel, it will really help. I have been asking for a sign there for 3 years. Hapworth – The proposed ordinance will add a no right on red sign, correct? Cohen – Yes, but I plan to make a motion to take that out and just put a sign right turn after stop instead. Morsillo – I have gotten more requests about putting a no turn on red sign at that intersection than any other except the Norman/New Derby St intersection. Are you hearing differently from others? Cohen - Motion to remove the language, from westbound Washington Street to northbound Washington Street and just put a sign right turn after stop. Seconded by Jerzylo. Motion carries 3-1. Hapworth – C. Watson-Felt had a question on some language that was removed regarding Washington St. Watson-Felt - On page 2, the 4th item down. It is the last item on the repealing list. Is this being repealed and then added back in to have clarifying language? Hodge – Yes, it is taking out the confusing language and adding it back in, so it is not so confusing. Hapworth – We will go on to Lafayette at Derby/New Derby St. I think this is the last Ward 2 intersection. Hodge – The recommendation is for 3 of the 4 corners have no turn on red, except the corner at Couch Dog, the eastbound approach from New Derby St. on to Lafayette St. Watson-Felt – It surprising me that you would recommend a legal right on red coming from New Derby St and going south on Lafayette St., but not the corner at Lafayette turning west on New Derby St. Tucker – At Lafayette northbound on to Derby St, we felt that since there is an extended green right turn light, that there was extra time but out of concern for the pedestrians, we would have it no right on red. There are sightline issues on the Enginehouse corner and on the corner with the Fire Station. The turn from New Derby St to southbound Lafayette St., even though there are a lot of pedestrians, there are no sightline issues, but we would add a right turn after stop sign. Also, from New Derby St. to Dodge St. is very short so that would be concerning if it backed up because there was no right turn on red at Lafayette. Hapworth – Offered public comment but no raised hands. Morsillo – Motion to keep in committee. Seconded by Jerzylo. Motion carries 4-0. On the motion of C. Morsillo, meeting adjourned at 7:53 P.M. ________________________________________________________ (Chairperson)