next week's TAG meeting

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Halle

unread,
May 7, 2026, 9:18:53 PMMay 7
to TAG
Hi everyone,

We have a TAG meeting next Wednesday, and we discussed having an in-person site visit somewhere. Thoughts? Comm Ave near the Marriott?

I would say on the city side, contact with TAG through me has been quiet. DPW Transportation is now fully-staffed but still catching up. The new administration seems to be figuring out its priorities in general. I have seen public mention about Washington Street planning but I've had no official requests for feedback or the analysis we have from the data. I'm on the overnight parking ban working group, but it's still being set up.

I wish I had more specific news for you.

Thoughts for topics, or just a general catch up?

Thanks.
--Mike

Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD

unread,
May 8, 2026, 7:13:02 AMMay 8
to Michael Halle, TAG
Hi Mike,

A few agenda topics come to mind: Newton Corner Mass DOT project, Route 9 development proposal in Brookline that borders and will affect Newton, Newton Highlands Village Improvement project, ongoing utility (primarily gas company) work that is leaving our streets in very bad shape, update on Bicycle-Pedestrian plan, update on Charles River bridge and timeline.

Srdj
From: newt...@googlegroups.com <newt...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Michael Halle <m...@halle.us>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 9:18 PM
To: TAG <newt...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: next week's TAG meeting
 
        External Email - Use Caution       

The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.  If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline .


Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 

Andreae Downs

unread,
May 8, 2026, 8:01:57 AMMay 8
to Srdjan S. Nedeljkovic MD, Michael Halle, TAG
I’d love to have an in-person near the marriott, weather permitting. We could bike the carriageway east!

And i agree that getting Jenn’s updates would be helpful 

A
Typed with two thumbs

On May 8, 2026, at 7:13 AM, 'Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD' via TAG <Newt...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Michael Halle

unread,
May 10, 2026, 12:19:23 PMMay 10
to Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD, TAG
Hi Srdj,

Thanks for these agenda suggestions.

I'll be blunt and say that several of these items actually pose something of a challenge based on where TAG and the city are right now, and it's part of a bigger picture we need to figure out.

The administration is still in the process of figuring out priorities and how to get to them done. Thay includes both TAG's role and how work is allocated to the people in the city staff we typically meet with.

I have always tried to steer our main agenda to actionable items: not just speaking but being heard and useful. That means that our conversations are relevant to Newton transportation AND that there's a path for our conversations to be heard meaningfully within the city. (That's all separate from updates, which we typically do at the beginning of meetings or that Jenn can provide if she has information.)

For instance, at this second I don't know how RT9 development discussions would be actionable in the city. The City has a process for Newton Highlands and has expressed to me in the past that they want that process to stay in the general public meetings. Newton Corner similarly has its own forum - perhaps we could have a local discussion about it, but it should have a specific agenda and include more local voices than just TAG.

I can say that the gas work is something that you'd need to provide more specific locations. There was a lot of work done in the last few months near Auburndale Square, for instance, but in the last couple of weeks the road was repaved to a pretty high quality state. So it's pretty dynamic. I can point you to this page, but unfortunately it isn't going to give you the level of detail you'd like:
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/public-works/construction-projects

Ultimately, we need to meet with the Mayor and his staff about how TAG fits into the Newton transportation picture. June?

--MIke



> On May 8, 2026, at 7:12 AM, Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD <snedel...@mgb.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> A few agenda topics come to mind: Newton Corner Mass DOT project, Route 9 development proposal in Brookline that borders and will affect Newton, Newton Highlands Village Improvement project, ongoing utility (primarily gas company) work that is leaving our streets in very bad shape, update on Bicycle-Pedestrian plan, update on Charles River bridge and timeline.
>
> SrdjFrom: newt...@googlegroups.com <newt...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Michael Halle <m...@halle.us>

Doug Cornelius

unread,
May 10, 2026, 2:05:10 PMMay 10
to TAG
If we are going to visit the new Carriage Lane as part of the meeting, I would suggest we offer some suggestions for the city about the path and its current endpoint. It's my understanding the roundabout is still a couple of years away. Maybe we could offer some suggestions for improving the interim with signage and small changes. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NewtonTAG/F2F89A64-3C00-4242-94EF-081AE13D832C%40halle.us.

jane hanser

unread,
May 10, 2026, 2:25:55 PMMay 10
to Doug Cornelius, TAG
Phil and I were there last week. The signage is a mess. 

Can we discuss this? I'd love that.

A friend of mine and her husband, who started out at Eastbourne, were biking to the Boathouse (last Sunday?) and they'd gotten to Islington when she almost got hit by a truck that was coming down the hill of Islington; the sign she thought, from the reverse side, was a stop sign - because all the other N/S roads (except signalized intersections) have a STOP sign - was just a cyclists/peds ahead sign. 

At the same time, a woman was driving in from Comm Ave and she also almost got hit by this car entering from the south; my friend later reasoned that the distance from Comm Ave to the Carriage Road, which as the width of the berm can be 10'-15' ft, was just a few feet because this area now has to fit in a) the W to E parking access lane; 2) the two-way eb/wb bike path ; 3) the W to E lane for motor vehicles for drop-off  4) the sidewalk. 

And in all this there are NO stop signs for anybody, not even for Islington. People who've been biking the Carriage Road also have certain expectations of consistency for the last 4-5 miles and everything breaks down here.

SO Phil, on the day he and I were biking there, he was past Islington, just before the little set of condos, on the bike lane and noticed a car and driver cutting through the cut-through. He assumed the driver was going to head into the condos - but NO! It turned left onto the bike lane!!! And continued along until Woodbine St, where the animal hospital is. There's also no signage at that cut for Bikes only

Want me to share photos??? I'll do so in a follow-up email.

jane



Jane Hanser


jane hanser

unread,
May 10, 2026, 3:07:02 PMMay 10
to TAG, do...@dougcornelius.com, Jenn Martin
Now with my images; see below.




----- Forwarded Message -----
From: jane hanser <jane...@aol.com>
To: Doug Cornelius <doug.co...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 at 02:25:52 PM EDT
Subject: Re: next week's TAG meeting - disaster with signage from Islington to Woodbine.

Phil and I were there last week. The signage is a mess. 

Can we discuss this? I'd love that.
BEGIN HERE: 
A friend of mine, who is a physician, and her husband, who started out at Eastbourne, were biking to the Boathouse (last Sunday?) and they'd gotten to Islington when she almost got hit by a truck that was coming down the hill of Islington; the sign she thought, from the reverse side, was a stop sign - because all the other N/S roads (except signalized intersections) have a STOP sign - was just a cyclists/peds ahead sign. 

VALENTINE (and all other N/S non-signalized roads): 
Inline image

ISLINGTON:  This is the sign that my friend, from the bike path and other side, assumed for good reason was a STOP sign. It should be a stop sign. And also bike/peds AHEAD. And there should be a good stop line. Note also at Islington the bushes obscure any visibility of who's coming along the bike path west to east. 

Inline image

At the same time, a woman was driving in from Comm Ave and she also almost got hit by this car entering from the south; my friend later reasoned that the distance from Comm Ave to the Carriage Road, which as the width of the berm can be 10'-15' ft, was just a few feet because this area now has to fit in a) the W to E parking access lane; 2) the two-way eb/wb bike path ; 3) the W to E lane for motor vehicles for drop-off  4) the sidewalk. 

ISLINGTON:
 
When a driver turns in from Comm Ave, he or she sees THIS:

Inline image

Totally impossible to know what's going on, or what to do, and very little time to figure it out. And it looks like one sign has already been knocked over (but not totally down.) Three different ONE WAY signs! all with arrows pointing right? 

For the bike way, I would like to see a sign such as they have but with the down arrows FOR BOTH SB AND NB sides; 
preferably even two signs together (MUTCD does recommend this combination):

Inline image
or
Inline image

And in all this there are NO stop signs for anybody, not even for Islington. People who've been biking the Carriage Road also have certain expectations of consistency for the last 4-5 miles and everything breaks down here.

Here's another one: This is the view biking east from the Boathouse toward Islington. Why is the arrow pointing left? Up Islington?  Also, the sign is TOO HIGH. Who is this sign for? (Answer: Pcople on bikes.) All the bike signs along the CR are much lower; they were originally higher but then Jason lowered them for me. 
Inline image

TYPICAL SIGN HEIGHT along the CR: (See the empty space at the top of the pole?) 

Inline image

All other roads:  e.g. VALENTINE:
We have a STOP sign for the bikes and an arrow that points STRAIGHT AHEAD. (Note again the signs on the pole for the cyclists are all lowered.)

Inline image

ADDL MAJOR ISSUE: Phil, on the day he and I were biking there, he was past Islington, just before the little set of condos, on the bike lane and noticed a car and driver from Comm Ave cutting through. He assumed the driver was going to head into the condos - but NO! The driver turned left ... onto the bike lane!!! And continued behind him, along until Woodbine St, where the animal hospital is. There's also no signage at that cut for BIKES ONLY.

I don't have a photo of this yet but we may take one later today.

Jane

Michael Halle

unread,
May 10, 2026, 6:06:50 PMMay 10
to jane hanser, Doug Cornelius, TAG
Excellent for observing Jane! (Less than excellent that there are problems.)

--Mike
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NewtonTAG/1053535828.247945.1778437552242%40mail.yahoo.com.

Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD

unread,
May 10, 2026, 8:27:48 PMMay 10
to Michael Halle, TAG
Hi Mike,

Appreciate the feedback! The role of TAG can be quite broad, based on the original intent from the Comprehensive Plan and later mission statements (attached).

Another agenda item is the parking ban discussion and potential modifications to the parking ban. 

Srdj


Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 12:19 PM
To: Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD <snedel...@mgb.org>; TAG <newt...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: next week's TAG meeting
 
        External Email - Use Caution       

Hi Srdj,

Thanks for these agenda suggestions.

I'll be blunt and say that several of these items actually pose something of a challenge based on where TAG and the city are right now, and it's part of a bigger picture we need to figure out.

The administration is still in the process of figuring out priorities and how to get to them done. Thay includes both TAG's role and how work is allocated to the people in the city staff we typically meet with.

I have always tried to steer our main agenda to actionable items: not just speaking but being heard and useful. That means that our conversations are relevant to Newton transportation AND that there's a path for our conversations to be heard meaningfully within the city. (That's all separate from updates, which we typically do at the beginning of meetings or that Jenn can provide if she has information.)

For instance, at this second I don't know how RT9 development discussions would be actionable in the city. The City has a process for Newton Highlands and has expressed to me in the past that they want that process to stay in the general public meetings. Newton Corner similarly has its own forum - perhaps we could have a local discussion about it, but it should have a specific agenda and include more local voices than just TAG.

I can say that the gas work is something that you'd need to provide more specific locations. There was a lot of work done in the last few months near Auburndale Square, for instance, but in the last couple of weeks the road was repaved to a pretty high quality state. So it's pretty dynamic. I can point you to this page, but unfortunately it isn't going to give you the level of detail you'd like:


Ultimately, we need to meet with the  Mayor and his staff about how TAG fits into the Newton transportation picture. June?

--MIke



> On May 8, 2026, at 7:12 AM, Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD <snedel...@mgb.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> A few agenda topics come to mind: Newton Corner Mass DOT project, Route 9 development proposal in Brookline that borders and will affect Newton, Newton Highlands Village Improvement project, ongoing utility (primarily gas company) work that is leaving our streets in very bad shape, update on Bicycle-Pedestrian plan, update on Charles River bridge and timeline.
>
> SrdjFrom: newt...@googlegroups.com <newt...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Michael Halle <m...@halle.us>
> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 9:18 PM
> To: TAG <newt...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: next week's TAG meeting
>          External Email - Use Caution       
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> We have a TAG meeting next Wednesday, and we discussed having an in-person site visit somewhere. Thoughts? Comm Ave near the Marriott?
>
> I would say on the city side, contact with TAG through me has been quiet. DPW Transportation is now fully-staffed but still catching up. The new administration seems to be figuring out its priorities in general. I have seen public mention about Washington Street planning but I've had no official requests for feedback or the analysis we have from the data. I'm on the overnight parking ban working group, but it's still being set up.
>
> I wish I had more specific news for you.
>
> Thoughts for topics, or just a general catch up?
>
> Thanks.
> --Mike
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TAG" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NewtonTAG+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://secure-web.cisco.com/12y0L7KRJH1tLJZ91W18aCcLY3p5vYrfSWtoKauvO98fNMX_KuS8dJAIH_bXnhcu4WtbIznVk-1CVzTTfc2WJHPP7NgfOCBxMOSo0HZ6kgZ_cT_nn9zBbk1U9QWjZ_RGN98ncfhJH0g3EFjn1tQk56BvtxdF7fJ_Kq9HcF_HaT3SRtEP9K_hy4b7I42SBEC_llLwwKf6BJAul-8ofM5tV17mLziz78w7JKr_1EV1uH0YGsDZCjlJhHZmhP7tnzYGg3IvIh8CqQO_K8GHxpJ7IUR37nUqdC8RMAMfa_nPwoUB0A3CN0DqbJ0z5Up6i-efoKtmHeQyg38Z6KKjs69dE3A/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2FNewtonTAG%2F02D7B445-A63F-448E-8A72-5E3271452B13%2540halle.us

>
> Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TAG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NewtonTAG+...@googlegroups.com.
TAG(VisionStatement)(05_10_26).doc

jane hanser

unread,
May 10, 2026, 10:17:38 PMMay 10
to Michael Halle, Doug Cornelius, TAG, Jenn Martin
Entering Islington:

Inline image

HERE is the view from the west side, looking toward Islington and Lyons Field.

Inline image

Above:  From this angle you can see the first right turn is to parking /through street eastbound. 
I feel the first ONE WAY arrow should indicate "ONE WAY" and "RIGHT ARROW ARROW" and "PARKING" (couldn't find an appropriate MUTCD Parking sign) or some such combination.

The second right (shown below; this is the sign already partly knocked over) is the bike lanes. The signage should be DO NOT ENTER and either "EXCEPT BIKES" or the BIKEWAY sign.   R5-1 + R3-7bP 

Inline image
--
This is a sign from Brookline:
Inline image

The third right RIGHT TURN ONLY sign?  What is this? Looks to me like a sidewalk. Why do we have a ONE WAY sign at a sidewalk along Lyons Field OR for the nature walk to Auburndale Cove? 

Jane

Jane Hanser


except.bikes sign.png
Sign_Brookline_Do Not Enter Except Bicycles.jpg
do-not-enter-except-bikes-access-restriction-no-cars-trucks-buses-allowed-pedestrians-57292771.jpg

Michael Halle

unread,
May 10, 2026, 10:41:24 PMMay 10
to Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD, TAG
The City Council parking ban working group is just formed and planning their first meeting, just FYI.

--Mike


> On May 10, 2026, at 8:27 PM, 'Nedeljkovic, Srdjan S.,MD' via TAG <Newt...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Appreciate the feedback! The role of TAG can be quite broad, based on the original intent from the Comprehensive Plan and later mission statements (attached).
>
> Another agenda item is the parking ban discussion and potential modifications to the parking ban.
>
> Srdj
>
>
> Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TAG" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NewtonTAG+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NewtonTAG/MN2PR04MB5632A9FB6F111F16C3AC1CC1C13B2%40MN2PR04MB5632.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
> <TAG(VisionStatement)(05_10_26).doc>

jane hanser

unread,
May 11, 2026, 12:18:58 PMMay 11
to Michael Halle, Doug Cornelius, TAG, Jenn Martin
We drove there today and were taking photos. We noticed that one ONE WAY sign has been removed, and the W11-15 and W16-WPL has been repaired (straightened). Apparently there's a FB group from Islington that has been sending in complaints and suggestions, INCLUDING adding a STOP sign to Islington in the southbound direction.

A guy who lives nearby was walking his dog and he stopped and spoke with us and told us all this.
Inline image

jane

Jane Hanser


John Pelletier

unread,
May 11, 2026, 10:07:25 PMMay 11
to jane hanser, Michael Halle, Doug Cornelius, TAG, Jenn Martin
FYI I reviewed the plans and these were installed per the 100% design plans from MassDot, and actually were in there likely at 25% too...though I dont have a copy of that  Its also somewhat squishy in the MUTCD on who should be signed at these roads/driveways. its not standard to have a stop sign for the main road at the intersection with a multi-use path, and in this section its not a carriage road, its a multi-use path, so therefor a stop sign is not usually warranted, its only to be installed at Comm Ave itself, or if the car-carriageway is intersecting.  None of the sideroads/driveways crossing the bike path have a stop sign on the plans in this section.  From the MUTCD:

Guidance:
04 Where conditions require path users, but not roadway users, to stop or yield, the STOP or YIELD sign should be placed or shielded so that it is not readily visible to road users.

05 When placement of STOP or YIELD signs is considered, priority at a shared-use path/roadway intersection should be assigned with consideration of the following:

  1. Relative speeds of shared-use path and roadway users,
  2. Relative volumes of shared-use path and roadway traffic, and
  3. Relative importance of shared-use path and roadway.

06 Speed should not be the sole factor used to determine priority, as it is sometimes appropriate to give priority to a high-volume shared-use path crossing a low-volume street, or to a regional shared-use path crossing a minor collector street.

07 When priority is assigned, the least restrictive control that is appropriate should be placed on the lower priority approaches. STOP signs should not be used where YIELD signs would be acceptable.


So one could argue as of right now, the roads have greater volume of movement and thus should not be restricted, the in-path yield chevrons (the little arrows) are suppose to do the trick to confirm yielding and ROW behavior, though there should have perhaps been signs for the shared use path users, as sight lines are fine, a yield sign as well as chevrons at minimum would be expected.

All that said, when taken into context of the rest of the carriage way design, the engineer of record should have used that context instead, referring to section 6 above as a regional shared use path crossing a minor street, and gone with two sets of stop signs as well as signage noting cross traffic does not stop or some such.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TAG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NewtonTAG+...@googlegroups.com.

jane hanser

unread,
May 11, 2026, 11:29:28 PMMay 11
to John Pelletier, TAG, Jenn Martin
Thanks, John.

I was in touch with Ned today and he said to send him what comments I have, so I'll (hopefully) be sending him a bunch of comments w the new images tomorrow. (Made a 2nd trip out there today and got more pics.) Your GUIDANCE and comments will be extremely helpful.

Jane

Jane Hanser


On Monday, May 11, 2026 at 10:07:24 PM EDT, John Pelletier <john.f.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI I reviewed the plans and these were installed per the 100% design plans from MassDot, and actually were in there likely at 25% too...though I dont have a copy of that  Its also somewhat squishy in the MUTCD on who should be signed at these roads/driveways. its not standard to have a stop sign for the main road at the intersection with a multi-use path, and in this section its not a carriage road, its a multi-use path, so therefor a stop sign is not usually warranted, its only to be installed at Comm Ave itself, or if the car-carriageway is intersecting.  None of the sideroads/driveways crossing the bike path have a stop sign on the plans in this section.  From the MUTCD:

Guidance:
04 Where conditions require path users, but not roadway users, to stop or yield, the STOP or YIELD sign should be placed or shielded so that it is not readily visible to road users.

05 When placement of STOP or YIELD signs is considered, priority at a shared-use path/roadway intersection should be assigned with consideration of the following:

  1. Relative speeds of shared-use path and roadway users,
  2. Relative volumes of shared-use path and roadway traffic, and
  3. Relative importance of shared-use path and roadway.

06 Speed should not be the sole factor used to determine priority, as it is sometimes appropriate to give priority to a high-volume shared-use path crossing a low-volume street, or to a regional shared-use path crossing a minor collector street.

07 When priority is assigned, the least restrictive control that is appropriate should be placed on the lower priority approaches. STOP signs should not be used where YIELD signs would be acceptable.


So one could argue as of right now, the roads have greater volume of movement and thus should not be restricted, the in-path yield chevrons (the little arrows) are supposed to do the trick to confirm yielding and ROW behavior, though there should have perhaps been signs for the shared use path users, as sight lines are fine, a yield sign as well as chevrons at minimum would be expected.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages