Public Comments
Members of the public may submit comments to the Borough Secretary in writing (147 Commerce Avenue, Tenley Falls, PA 15338), by email at publiccomment@tenleyfalls.gov, or in person during the public comment period at regularly scheduled Borough Council meetings. All comments received are published as submitted and do not represent the views or positions of the Borough of Tenley Falls, its elected officials, or its staff.
Comments are posted below in reverse chronological order by date received.
Submitted Comments
Dear Borough Council and Borough Secretary,
I am writing to submit my comments in advance of the forthcoming public hearing on proposed Amendment 1053-C and to supplement my previous submissions regarding both Phase I and Phase II of the roundabout installation program under Ordinance 1053. I want to begin by reiterating, as I have in each of my prior submissions, that I have no personal opposition to roundabouts as a concept. The traffic safety literature is clear that modern roundabouts, when properly designed and sited, reduce both the frequency and severity of intersection crashes. This is not in dispute. My concerns, which I will outline below, relate exclusively to process, design conformance, and the specific engineering decisions made in the context of the Tenley Falls installations.
First, regarding the international context. I have continued to review roundabout design literature since my last submission and wish to draw the Council's attention to several points of comparison. The Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (2016 edition) establishes a standard for single-lane roundabouts that prioritizes geometric consistency, including a recommended inscribed circle diameter of 25 to 30 meters for urban environments with mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic. The UK's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (CD 116) similarly emphasizes the relationship between entry path curvature and speed reduction, recommending that entry deflection be sufficient to reduce 85th-percentile approach speeds to below 25 mph. The NCHRP Report 672, which I have referenced in previous comments, aligns with these principles. I raise this not to suggest that European standards should govern Pennsylvania municipal roadways, but to establish that there exists a broad international consensus on what constitutes safe roundabout geometry, and to provide a framework for evaluating whether the Tenley Falls designs meet that consensus.
Second, regarding Phase I (Elm & Spruce). In my September 2025 submission, I identified what I believed were discrepancies between the approved engineering drawings obtained through my Right-to-Know request (RTK #2025-0041) and the as-built conditions at the Elm & Spruce roundabout. I have since had the opportunity to take additional measurements. Using a 100-foot tape measure and a digital inclinometer, I have confirmed that the inscribed circle diameter of the as-built roundabout is approximately 93 feet, compared to the 98 feet shown on Sheet C-4 of the approved design drawings. A five-foot discrepancy in inscribed circle diameter has meaningful implications for truck apron utilization, entry path radius, and the fastest path speed through the intersection. I have submitted a formal inquiry to Tri-County Engineering Group regarding this discrepancy and have not yet received a response. I would ask that the Borough follow up on this matter and provide a public explanation.
Third, regarding Phase II (Oak & Main). I have reviewed the preliminary design drawings for the Phase II installation as published on this website. The Oak & Main intersection presents substantially different engineering challenges than Elm & Spruce. The grade differential between the Oak Street approach (approximately 4.2% downgrade from the northwest) and the Main Street approaches (approximately 1.5% in both directions) raises serious questions about approach speed management and sight distance. I have consulted the AASHTO Green Book (A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition) and note that the minimum stopping sight distance for a 30 mph design speed on a 4% downgrade is 220 feet. Based on my review of the preliminary drawings, I am not confident that this distance is achievable on the Oak Street northwest approach given the existing tree canopy and the retaining wall at 445 Oak Street.
Fourth, regarding stormwater. The Phase II site is located within the Tenley Creek sub-watershed. The existing intersection drains to a catch basin at the southeast corner that connects to a 15-inch reinforced concrete pipe running south along Main Street. The proposed roundabout design will alter the impervious surface area and drainage patterns at this intersection. I have reviewed the Borough's MS4 permit (PAG-13 General Permit) and note that any increase in impervious surface exceeding 1,000 square feet triggers the requirement for a post-construction stormwater management plan under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102. I would ask whether such a plan has been prepared and whether it has been submitted to the Garrett County Conservation District for review.
Finally, I wish to note a point of comparison that may be instructive. The City of Carmel, Indiana has installed over 150 roundabouts since the late 1990s and has compiled extensive data on their safety and operational performance. A 2016 study published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that Carmel's roundabout program was associated with a 47% reduction in all crashes and a roughly 90% reduction in injury crashes at converted intersections. These are compelling numbers. However, Carmel's success is attributable in significant part to the consistency and quality of their engineering, as well as sustained public education efforts. I would encourage the Borough to consider what lessons Carmel's experience offers not only in terms of the potential benefits of roundabouts, but also in terms of the institutional commitment to engineering rigor and community engagement that made those benefits achievable.
I am deeply concerned about process. The residents of Tenley Falls deserve confidence that public infrastructure projects are being executed with the highest standard of engineering care, transparency, and accountability. I intend to attend the February 19 hearing and to present these comments in person at that time.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Barfield
312 Spruce Avenue, Tenley Falls
Received: November 14, 2025 | Via: In Person (Council Meeting, November 4, 2025; written copy submitted) | Re: Ordinance 1053
I have lived in Tenley Falls for twenty-two years. I have paid my taxes, I have served on the volunteer fire company, and I have never once come before this council to complain about anything. I am here tonight because I feel like the people of this borough deserve a voice in what is happening to our town.
There is a recall petition circulating right now. I am not going to stand here and tell you whether I signed it or not because that is my private business. But I will tell you that the fact that it exists should tell this council something. When over two hundred of your residents feel strongly enough to put their names on a piece of paper asking for a special election, that is not a fringe group. That is a significant portion of this community saying that they do not feel heard.
I am asking this council to pause Phase II until a proper independent review can be conducted. Not by Tri-County Engineering, who designed it. An independent review. That is not an unreasonable request. I am trying to be constructive here. I am not against progress and I am not against safety improvements. I am against being told that this is a done deal when people still have legitimate questions that have not been answered.
Thank you.
Received: September 22, 2025 | Via: Email | Re: Ordinance 1053 / Phase I As-Built Conditions
Dear Borough Council,
I am writing as a follow-up to my previous comments regarding the Phase I roundabout installation at Elm Street and Spruce Avenue. Since my last submission, I have obtained copies of the approved engineering design drawings for the Phase I installation through a Right-to-Know request submitted to the Borough on July 14, 2025 (RTK #2025-0041). I received the responsive documents on August 8, 2025, consisting of 23 pages of design drawings and specifications prepared by Tri-County Engineering Group, dated April 2023, and stamped by Brian Kessler, P.E.
I have spent the past several weeks reviewing these drawings in detail and comparing them to the as-built conditions at the Elm & Spruce intersection. I wish to bring several apparent discrepancies to the attention of the Council and the public.
First, regarding the inscribed circle diameter. Sheet C-4 of the approved drawings specifies an inscribed circle diameter (ICD) of 98 feet. I have measured the as-built ICD using a tape measure at multiple points across the circle, taking measurements from the outside edge of the truck apron curb. My measurements consistently return a diameter of approximately 93 feet. While I acknowledge that my measurement methodology is not equivalent to a professional survey, a discrepancy of this magnitude, if confirmed, would be significant. The ICD is a fundamental parameter of roundabout geometry that directly affects the fastest path speed through the intersection, the entry path radius, and the capacity of the truck apron to accommodate large vehicles.
Second, regarding the splitter island dimensions. Sheet C-5 specifies that the Spruce Avenue northbound splitter island should be 6 feet wide at its widest point and extend 45 feet from the yield line. The as-built splitter island appears to be narrower than specified, though I have not been able to take precise measurements due to traffic conditions. The width and length of splitter islands are not cosmetic features. They serve critical functions in controlling entry speed and providing pedestrian refuge. I would note that NCHRP Report 672 recommends a minimum splitter island width of 6 feet for pedestrian accommodation, and that the approved design appears to have been developed with this standard in mind.
Third, regarding the central island landscaping. The approved drawings (Sheet L-1) specify the planting of five ornamental trees within the central island, with a maximum mature height of 3 feet for groundcover plantings around the perimeter to preserve sight lines across the island. As built, the central island contains what appear to be three arborvitae that, at their current size, likely exceed 3 feet in height. If these plantings continue to grow unchecked, they will obstruct sight lines across the central island, which could have safety implications. I recognize this may seem like a minor concern, but sight distance through the central island is a factor in driver decision-making, particularly for drivers unfamiliar with the intersection.
Fourth, regarding signage. The approved drawings include a signage plan (Sheet T-2) that calls for the installation of MUTCD-standard R6-4 (roundabout directional arrow) signs at each splitter island. As of my last visit to the intersection on September 18, the Elm Street westbound approach does not have this sign. I have verified this on multiple occasions. While the R6-4 sign is not the only navigational cue available to drivers, its absence represents a deviation from the approved signage plan.
I want to be clear that I am not alleging wrongdoing or incompetence. Construction projects frequently involve field adjustments, and there may be entirely reasonable explanations for each of the items I have noted above. However, I believe that the public has a right to understand whether the as-built conditions at Elm & Spruce conform to the approved engineering design, and if they do not, what review process was followed for any field changes. I would respectfully request that the Borough commission an independent as-built survey of the Phase I roundabout and publish the results.
Thank you for your continued attention to these matters.
Respectfully,
Tom Barfield
312 Spruce Avenue
Received: October 3, 2025 | Via: Email | Re: Traffic Calming Advisory Committee
Dear Members of the Borough Council,
As you are aware, I tendered my resignation from the Traffic Calming Advisory Committee effective September 26, 2025, after serving as a member since the committee's formation in January 2023. I am submitting this comment for the public record to explain my reasons for resigning, which I was not given the opportunity to state at the September 24 committee meeting due to time constraints.
I joined the Traffic Calming Advisory Committee in good faith, believing that it would serve as a genuine forum for community input on the Borough's traffic calming initiatives, including but not limited to the roundabout program under Ordinance 1053. Over the past two and a half years, I have attended twenty-eight of the committee's thirty meetings. I have reviewed every document provided to the committee and have prepared written feedback on multiple occasions.
It is my assessment that the committee is advisory in name only. In my experience, recommendations contrary to the predetermined outcome were not welcome. When committee members raised substantive questions about design alternatives, cost estimates, or construction timelines, these questions were either deferred to future meetings where they were not revisited, or referred to Tri-County Engineering for responses that were not shared with the full committee. On at least two occasions, I submitted written questions to the committee chair that were not included in meeting agendas or minutes.
I want to emphasize that I believe traffic calming is an important public safety goal and that the Elm & Spruce intersection had a well-documented history of accidents prior to the Phase I installation. My concerns are not about the merits of traffic calming but about the integrity of the advisory process. A committee that does not meaningfully advise serves only to create the appearance of public participation without its substance.
I wish the remaining committee members well and hope that the Borough will consider reforms to the committee's charter and operating procedures.
Sincerely,
Cheryl DeSanto
118 Hemlock Drive
Received: August 19, 2025 | Via: Written (hand-delivered) | Re: Ordinance 1053
[This comment has been redacted pursuant to Borough Policy 2019-04 regarding personally identifying information about minors. The original comment is retained in Borough records. The commenter may contact the Borough Secretary to discuss the redaction or to submit a revised comment for publication.]
Received: April 14, 2025 | Via: Email | Re: Ordinance 1053 / Phase II Preliminary Design
Dear Borough Council,
I am writing to comment on the preliminary design drawings for the Phase II roundabout installation at the intersection of Oak Street and Main Street, which were posted to the Borough website on March 28, 2025. I have taken the time to review these drawings carefully and wish to raise several concerns specific to the Phase II site that I believe warrant attention before the design is finalized.
My first concern relates to the grade differential at the Oak & Main intersection. Unlike the Elm & Spruce intersection, which is situated on relatively flat terrain, the Oak & Main intersection involves a significant grade change. Oak Street descends from the northwest at what I estimate to be approximately a 4% grade based on visual observation and comparison with topographic maps available through the Garrett County GIS portal. This downgrade raises concerns about approach speed management for vehicles entering the roundabout from the northwest. A vehicle traveling downhill at the posted 25 mph speed limit will require a greater stopping distance than a vehicle on a level surface. The AASHTO Green Book provides stopping sight distance tables that account for grade, and I would ask whether the Phase II design has been evaluated against these standards for the Oak Street downhill approach.
My second concern relates to sight distance on the Oak Street northwest approach. The existing conditions on this approach include a mature tree canopy and a stone retaining wall associated with the property at 445 Oak Street. These features may limit the available sight distance for drivers approaching the roundabout from the northwest. Specifically, I am concerned about whether drivers will have adequate sight distance to the yield line and to circulating traffic, particularly during leaf-on conditions in summer months. NCHRP Report 672 provides detailed guidance on sight distance requirements at roundabout approaches, and I would ask whether a sight distance analysis has been performed for this approach.
My third concern involves stormwater management. The Oak & Main intersection is located in a low area relative to the surrounding streets, and I have observed significant ponding at this intersection during heavy rain events. The existing storm drainage at this location consists of a single catch basin at the southeast corner of the intersection. The construction of a roundabout will alter both the impervious surface footprint and the grading at this intersection, which will change the drainage patterns. I would ask whether a stormwater management analysis has been prepared for the Phase II project and, if so, whether it accounts for the 100-year storm event as required by the Borough's stormwater management ordinance.
My fourth concern relates to construction-period access for residents of Oak Street. The preliminary drawings do not include a traffic management plan for the construction period. Residents on the 400 and 500 blocks of Oak Street, including several elderly residents who I understand rely on regular medical transport services, will need to maintain vehicular access to their properties during construction. I would ask the Borough to publish a construction-period traffic management plan well in advance of construction activities and to hold a meeting with affected residents to discuss access accommodations.
I continue to support the Borough's interest in improving intersection safety and appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. I would be happy to discuss any of these points in greater detail at a future Council meeting or committee session.
Respectfully,
Tom Barfield
312 Spruce Avenue
Received: February 11, 2025 | Via: Written (mailed) | Re: Ordinance 1053
To Borough Council,
I am a Class A CDL holder and I have been driving professionally for 14 years. I drive a day cab pulling a 48-foot flatbed for Allegheny Consolidated out of the Uniontown terminal. My route takes me through Tenley Falls three to four times per week depending on dispatch.
The roundabout at Elm and Spruce is a problem for trucks. I can get through it but I have to use the truck apron every time and I have to swing wide into the oncoming entry lane to make the geometry work. I have had multiple close calls with passenger vehicles who do not understand that a truck needs the full width of the roadway to navigate that circle. I know roundabouts work fine in Europe but this isn't Europe, this is Tenley Falls, and the roads here were not designed for roundabouts. The turning radius on a WB-67 combination vehicle is 45 feet and I do not believe the roundabout was designed with that in mind.
If the borough is going to build another one of these at Oak and Main I would ask that you consult with actual truck drivers before you finalize the design. I would be happy to meet with whoever is doing the engineering to show them what the issues are. My phone number is on file with the borough office.
Jim Polaski
Tenley Falls
Received: September 6, 2024 | Via: Email | Re: Ordinance 1053 / Roundabout Design Standards
Dear Members of the Borough Council,
I have taken the time to review the available documentation on the Phase I roundabout design at Elm Street and Spruce Avenue, including the summary materials posted to the Borough website and the general design parameters presented by Tri-County Engineering Group at the June 12 Traffic Calming Committee meeting. I appreciate that the Borough has made these materials available and I want to offer some observations based on my own research into roundabout design standards.
Over the past several months, I have been reviewing published guidance on modern roundabout design, including NCHRP Report 672 ("Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition"), which is the primary reference document used by transportation engineers in the United States for roundabout planning and design. I have also reviewed materials published by the Federal Highway Administration, including their "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide" (FHWA-RD-00-067) and the more recent "Roundabout Technical Summary" documents.
In addition, I have looked at European design standards for context. The Netherlands, which has one of the most extensive roundabout networks in Europe, publishes detailed design guidance through the CROW knowledge platform. The United Kingdom's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges includes specific geometric standards for roundabouts of various sizes and configurations. While I recognize that European standards are not directly applicable to Pennsylvania municipalities, they provide useful benchmarks and reflect decades of empirical experience with roundabout design and operation.
Based on my review, I have several specific questions regarding the Tenley Falls Phase I design that I would appreciate having addressed, either in writing or at a future public meeting:
1. Does the Phase I design conform to the geometric standards set forth in NCHRP Report 672 for a single-lane urban roundabout? Specifically, does the inscribed circle diameter, entry width, entry radius, and circulatory roadway width fall within the recommended ranges?
2. Has a fastest-path analysis been performed to verify that the design achieves the target speed reduction through the intersection? NCHRP Report 672 recommends a fastest-path speed of no more than 25 mph for single-lane roundabouts.
3. What design vehicle was used for the Phase I roundabout? The design vehicle selection affects the truck apron dimensions, the circulatory roadway width, and the overall inscribed circle diameter. Given that Spruce Avenue carries some truck traffic, including delivery vehicles serving the Commerce Avenue commercial district, I would assume a minimum WB-50 design vehicle, but I would appreciate confirmation.
4. Have pedestrian accommodations been designed in accordance with ADA requirements and the guidance in NCHRP Report 672, Chapter 6? Specifically, have detectable warning surfaces been provided at all crosswalk locations, and are the pedestrian splitter island cut-throughs aligned with the crosswalks?
I want to be clear that I am raising these questions in a spirit of constructive engagement. I believe that public infrastructure projects benefit from informed public review, and I am simply asking for the kind of information that would allow residents to evaluate the design on its technical merits.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
Tom Barfield
312 Spruce Avenue, Tenley Falls
Received: July 22, 2024 | Via: Written (hand-delivered) | Re: Ordinance 1053 / Phase II
Dear Council Members,
We are writing as residents of 427 Oak Street, which is located less than 100 feet from the proposed Phase II roundabout at Oak and Main. We have lived at this address for thirty-one years and have significant concerns about the impact of this project on our property and our quality of life.
First, we are concerned about construction noise and disruption. We are both retired and spend the majority of our time at home. The Phase I construction at Elm and Spruce went on for several months and we could hear the equipment from our house even though it was several blocks away. We can only imagine what it will be like when the construction is directly outside our front door. We would like to know what the expected construction timeline is and whether there will be restrictions on work hours.
Second, we need to know how we will access our driveway during construction. Our driveway enters Oak Street directly and if Oak Street is closed at the intersection we will have no way to get our vehicles in or out. Robert has medical appointments twice a week in Uniontown that he cannot miss.
Third, and we are not the only ones on this street who feel this way, we are very concerned about what this will do to our property values. We purchased this home in 1993 and it represents our primary retirement asset. We have spoken with a real estate agent who told us that there is no comparable data for how a roundabout affects residential property values in a community of this size, which in itself is concerning. We feel that the Borough should commission an independent appraisal study before proceeding.
We are not opposed to safety improvements and we understand that the intersection has had problems. But we feel that the people who will be most directly affected by this project have not been adequately consulted. We request a meeting with the Council or the appropriate committee to discuss these concerns in person.
Thank you,
Robert and Linda Feltz
427 Oak Street
Received: June 3, 2024 | Via: Email | Re: Elm & Spruce Roundabout / Trailer Damage
Hello,
I am writing because I cannot get my boat trailer through the new roundabout at Elm and Spruce without hitting the curb. My trailer is a 2019 EZ Loader single-axle, model 16-18 GLXL. It is 21 feet 4 inches in overall length and 7 feet 2 inches wide. This is a standard size trailer for a 16 to 18 foot boat, which is what I have (a 17-foot Lund). I launch at Youghiogheny River Lake about a dozen times per season and the most direct route from my house to the ramp goes through that intersection.
On May 26 I was pulling the trailer through the roundabout and the right rear fender of the trailer caught the raised curb on the inside of the circle. It scraped along the curb for about four feet before I was able to correct. The fender is now bent and scratched and the tire sidewall has scuff marks. I have photos.
I would like to know two things. First, who do I contact about submitting a claim for the damage to my trailer? Second, is there a plan to address the fact that the roundabout cannot accommodate vehicles towing standard-size recreational trailers? I have talked to at least three other people at the marina who have the same problem. One of them now drives two miles out of his way to avoid the intersection entirely.
Please respond to this email or call me at the number I left with the front desk last week.
Thank you,
Karen Olecheck
Received: March 18, 2024 | Via: Email | Re: Ordinance 1053 / Phase I Design
Dear Borough Council,
I am writing again regarding the Phase I roundabout at Elm and Spruce. Since my initial comment in October, I have done some additional research on roundabout design and I have a few more detailed questions that I hope the Council or the Traffic Calming Committee can address.
My main concern at this point is whether the design adequately accommodates truck traffic. Spruce Avenue is used by delivery trucks serving the businesses on Commerce Avenue, and I have personally observed tractor-trailers using the intersection on multiple occasions. The Federal Highway Administration's roundabout guidance (FHWA-RD-00-067) discusses the importance of selecting an appropriate design vehicle and designing the truck apron and circulatory roadway to accommodate that vehicle's turning radius. For a WB-50 design vehicle, the minimum turning radius is approximately 42 feet. I would like to know what design vehicle was assumed in the Tri-County Engineering design and whether a swept-path analysis was performed to verify that the design vehicle can navigate the roundabout without encroaching on adjacent lanes or mounting the curb.
I would also like to understand the relationship between the inscribed circle diameter and the entry path radius. The inscribed circle diameter determines the overall size of the roundabout, and the entry path radius determines how much drivers must slow down to enter the circle. If the entry path radius is too large, vehicles can enter at higher speeds than intended, which defeats the purpose of the roundabout as a traffic calming measure. Has this been analyzed?
I appreciate your patience with these questions and I understand that the design was prepared by licensed professionals. I am simply trying to educate myself as a resident and taxpayer so that I can participate meaningfully in the public process.
Thank you,
Tom Barfield
312 Spruce Avenue
Received: December 11, 2023 | Via: In Person (Council Meeting, December 5, 2023; written copy submitted) | Re: Ordinance 1053
I just want to say briefly that I support the roundabout at Elm and Spruce. I am a registered nurse and I have worked at Uniontown Hospital for eleven years. I have personally treated patients who were brought in from crashes at that intersection. One of them was a teenager. The data that was presented at the October meeting showed twelve reportable accidents at Elm and Spruce in the past five years, including two with serious injuries. If a roundabout can reduce that number, I am for it.
I know there are concerns about the design and the cost and I understand those concerns. But I would ask people to also consider the cost of doing nothing. Thank you.
Received: October 24, 2023 | Via: Email | Re: Ordinance 1053
Dear Borough Council,
I attended the October 17 Council meeting at which Ordinance 1053 was discussed and I wanted to follow up with a few questions. I live on Spruce Avenue about two blocks south of the Elm Street intersection and I use that intersection daily, so I have a direct interest in this project.
My questions are straightforward. First, what is the expected construction timeline for the Phase I roundabout? Will construction take place over the summer months, and if so, what will the detour route be during construction? Second, will there be signage installed to help drivers who are unfamiliar with roundabouts? I have driven through roundabouts in other places and they can be confusing the first few times. I think some educational signage or even a mailer to residents explaining how to use the roundabout would be helpful.
I appreciate the Council's work on traffic safety and I look forward to learning more about this project as it develops.
Thank you,
Tom Barfield
312 Spruce Avenue
Received: January 9, 2026 | Via: Email | Re: Ordinance 1053 / Amendment 1053-C / Phase II Design