Speed Limits: Suggestions, Not Enforcement
Farmington’s Bike Advisory Committee is wrestling with a deceptively simple question: should the town’s trail network function like a recreational amenity—or like real transportation infrastructure with rules, signage, and school access built in. At its latest meeting, that tension surfaced everywhere: in debates over bollards and striping, in the costs of basic trail signs, and in the slow work of getting Safe Routes to School audits through the right bureaucratic door.
Sponsored Message
The We Are Farmington website is brought to you by Farmington Storage—155 Scott Swamp Road, 860-777-4001. They store what won’t fit in your basement, garage, or patience folder. Climate-controlled, dependable, and blessedly uninterested in whether you stripe the trail, post a speed limit, or argue about it for 90 minutes first. Your stuff won’t judge you.
🎥 Meeting Video
A New Liaison, a Familiar Reality
The meeting opened with an introduction: Bruce Polsky, newly elected to Town Council for District 1 and now serving as the committee’s Town Council liaison. Committee members noted the timing—he had been picked “yesterday,” as the chair put it—so the group agreed to move slowly through the agenda and provide context as needed.
Polsky described his background as a retired IT executive and former Planning and Zoning member, and said he hoped to “do a lot of good advising to Town Council.” He also referenced past cycling experience, including owning a bike company, and noted he now rides primarily on a Peloton. He asked BruceDonald to chair the meeting this time while he gets oriented to the committee’s ongoing work.
Who Was in the Room
Introductions underscored the committee’s mix of advocacy, technical experience, and town operations:
- BruceDonald introduced himself as Southern New England manager for the EastCoastGreenwayAlliance, chairman of the ConnecticutGreenwaysCouncil, and board-affiliated with multiple trail and outdoor organizations. He also identified himself as a Farmington resident and Farmington High School Class of 1979.
- RonGoralski, co-chair of BikeWalkFarmingtonCT, described the group’s history dating back to 2014 and referenced roles with the FarmingtonValleyTrailsCouncil and WatchForMeCT safety work.
- AndrusScalte described himself as a Farmington resident and engineer with extensive cycling experience, including commuting and mountain bike racing, and said he joined to keep long-term projects moving.
- NeilKelsey said he has served on the committee since its start in 2013 or 2014.
- RichardMaul described commuting to work at Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, and said he joined the committee to push for a safe route “out of town, up the jug handle,” noting that a design grant is now in place.
- CarolynBernier, co-chair of BikeWalkFarmingtonCT, described her focus on community infrastructure, family use, and equity in how people get around.
- DanRodriguez introduced himself as a community policing officer representing the police department.
- MasonGoudre introduced himself as a project superintendent in the town’s engineering division.
- The chair noted he works in the planning office and said the office is involved with planning applications and development, with attention to bike and pedestrian safety.
Project List: Small Parts, Long Timelines
Bollard Maintenance—and the Bigger Question
The committee reviewed ongoing bollard maintenance on the trails: sanding, repainting, and adding new reflective tape. The Highway Department will handle the work during winter downtime “on an as-need basis.”
The larger discussion: many intersections originally used three bollards across. Members described concerns about bikes getting through safely. The committee is considering removing one or more bollards at certain crossings and aligning with current AASHTO practice—described at the meeting as one center bollard, along with lane markings and a diamond symbol to indicate passing behavior.
Polsky asked whether remaining bollards would be repositioned. The chair said the approach still needs to be worked out, and noted winter asphalt availability limits when changes can occur.
Highlands Wayfinding: A Connector, and the Politics of Notice
The committee returned to an idea discussed over multiple years: getting trail users off the main trail and into the Highlands via a connection near Rosewood. The chair described a possible route passing by a detention basin and tying into the sidewalk system.
The central point was not engineering first—it was community reaction. The chair said he intended to contact neighbors before work proceeds, arguing that if residents discover a new path “dumping everybody right into the road” near their homes, complaints can escalate quickly into Town Council disputes.
RonGoralski pressed on process: what happens if residents object. The chair responded that the purpose of outreach was discussion, not a veto—an attempt to avoid a scenario where residents ask, “Who built this? How did this get approved? Why weren’t we notified?”
Members discussed surface options. Stone dust was described as likely, depending on expected use and maintenance needs, with comments about drainage and grade reversals. One member offered to share Google Maps to show the route; the chair shared his screen and pointed to Brickyard Road, Farmington Avenue, Rosewood, nearby businesses including Edwards Motors and Farmington Motors, and the detention basin.
A related point surfaced: an unofficial cut-through near Big Sky and nearby condos, currently crossed via what was described as “a janky two by 12.” The chair said any official bridge work would likely require wetlands permitting because a brook runs through the area, and encouraged interested parties to contact the property owners and the town to discuss options.
Trail-to-Business Connections: “More Like a Road Network”
The committee discussed improving access to businesses along the trails—an effort framed as shifting the trail from purely recreational use toward practical connectivity.
A recent example: a new small stone dust connection in Unionville off Depot Place, allowing trail users to reach Daily Grind. The chair described it as a way for trail users to “grab a coffee, a donut,” and noted it creates a reason for people to access businesses from the trail. The item remains open for future ideas.
Signs: The Basic Problem With Expensive Basics
The committee reviewed replacing trail parking lot identification signs, described as being in poor condition, including one that was “literally falling apart.”
A cost estimate was circulated; the figure discussed was about $4,800 and change and “almost six grand installed,” depending on the breakdown. Members discussed whether the FarmingtonValleyTrailsCouncil could share costs and whether another quote could be obtained.
They also clarified a separate signage effort: the statewide mileage marker project. BruceDonald reported that the Trails Council applied to the Connecticut Recreational Trails Program for $120,000 to install mileage signage from New Haven to Suffield, with decisions expected late February or early March. He noted he had recused himself from the application review due to involvement in the submission.
The committee acknowledged a larger implication: if the town attempted to install signs at many road crossings, costs could grow quickly.
Subcommittees: The Work That Happens Outside the Meeting
Website Updates
The chair reported that CarolynBernier had done substantial work to improve the committee’s web presence, and said the town would revise and update the page. Carolyn noted editing access issues and resent materials to the chair during the meeting.
Safe Routes to School: Education vs Audit—and Who Has to Ask
The most detailed exchange concerned Safe Routes to School.
The chair described Safe Routes as a state organization that can provide engineering review—having an engineer assess how students access schools, observe drop-off conditions, and recommend safer connections. He also described education programs.
RonGoralski clarified that any bike education program would follow BikeWalkConnecticut guidance rather than the Safe Routes curriculum, which he described as “a better program.” He also noted limited recent engagement from the Board of Education liaison, though the chair said there had been contact with the superintendent and that discussion was ongoing due to leadership transition timing.
AndrusScalte provided a more detailed account: he met with the assistant superintendent months earlier and was told the Safe Routes audit is a town-owned effort, not a Board of Education initiative. He said the assistant superintendent wanted Town Council to direct the Board of Education to sign so the town would “own the audit report,” and expressed concern that school leaders did not want recommendations they were not empowered to implement.
Scalte argued the audit is “very low lift,” described it as taking about three hours for someone to shadow the walkthrough, and said it could support future infrastructure priorities—especially the Irving A. Robbins Middle School area and the Jug Handle project—by aligning recommendations with DOT.
BrucePolsky said he would follow up with Brian and asked for links and supporting materials. RichardMaul echoed the connectivity argument, emphasizing middle school independence and the absence of safe routes, while Scalte framed the long-term aim as making it normal for kids to bike to school—while acknowledging the larger barrier is convincing parents.
The “Vibrant Community Forum”: Dropped for Now
A subcommittee working on a Bike Walk Vibrant Community Forum reported that the event was initially scheduled for September, moved to March, and now dropped due to time and staffing limits.
NeilKelsey said the group was “not getting the momentum or the support” required, and that the three members involved had other commitments including library programs and bike rodeos. CarolynBernier agreed that such a forum would require broader town support and additional panelists.
The chair said a September event would require planning to start now, and emphasized that the subcommittee was not expected to do the entire event alone—only to develop a plan for the larger committee to execute.
Westwoods to the Trail: A Good Idea Meets Wetlands and Sanctuary Land
CarolynBernier raised a rough idea: creating a connection between Westwoods upper elementary and the bike path, noting proximity (about a half mile) and that land between includes town- and state-owned parcels, with some wetlands. She said she had briefly discussed it with a DEEP contact who suggested educational-adjacent trail projects can sometimes attract funding.
BruceDonald said the idea had been examined “years and years ago,” including when the school was built, and cited wetlands barriers and cost. The committee discussed an alternate idea: using the school’s entrance road sidewalk area, potentially widening and extending it to reach existing crossings.
The chair described the area as wet, with significant wetlands, farmland leases, irrigation swales, and FEMA flood considerations. He emphasized cost drivers: wetlands science reports, surveying, bridging, and construction complexity. BruceDonald cited recent experience elsewhere: in Plainville, boardwalk bids were described as approaching $1 million per 100 linear feet.
A side discussion touched on whether school mountain bike trails could be developed. The chair said state land in the area is sanctuary land and that changes there would be “unlikely,” a view BruceDonald reinforced.
The chair also referenced a separate sidewalk grant on the south side of Meadow Road, with a schematic plan and an anticipated public informational meeting. Width discussed at the meeting was five feet. Members debated potential usage—some skepticism, but also optimism that sidewalks and trail access could shift parent comfort and enable more school and recreation trips.
Old Business: Speed Limits, Striping, and What Trails Are For
The committee returned to trail speed limits and enforcement. DanRodriguez said staffing constraints limit any meaningful speed enforcement, and referenced an article suggesting laser equipment could be used, though he had not tested it.
BruceDonald framed speed limits as primarily educational—an etiquette signal rather than a tool for consistent enforcement—especially given e-bikes and devices that may not meet legal definitions of e-bikes. He cited broader regional developments, including discussion in New Jersey about licensing requirements, as an example of how heated this topic has become.
The striping discussion was more contentious. RonGoralski urged slowing down to do more research, noting that less than half of trails in the U.S. are striped based on quick review and that decisions seemed to be moving “rather quickly.”
NeilKelsey questioned the purpose of full striping and warned it could make trails feel like “two lanes” of traffic, potentially encouraging higher-speed behavior and creating conflict over passing. BruceDonald explained the rationale: encouraging users to keep right, reducing incidents, and creating predictability, while emphasizing a key constraint—trail width. He referenced a national standard described at the meeting: 11 feet minimum to stripe, and noted Farmington has stretches described as nine feet and some as eight feet.
Others noted practical effects: a center line can cue walkers to stay right, making passing easier, but could also require additional signage to avoid confusion—especially where some people already walk on the left as if on a road. Members raised concerns about “sign graffiti” and slippery reflective products; BruceDonald advised against tape products.
A possible middle ground emerged: striping and icons at intersections rather than continuous center lines, paired with education.
Grants, Micro-Grants, and the Push for Capacity
Late in the meeting, AndrusScalte raised micro-grants through Safe Routes to School—described as $5,000 maximumand “first come, first served.” BruceDonald reported DOT had announced another round totaling $750,000, described as accessible with limited hoops, and said educational projects qualify. The committee discussed using town applications to support BikeWalkFarmingtonCT programming.
Separately, the chair confirmed the town applied for a Recreational Trails grant that includes funding for a part-time bike coordinator position, with results expected in March.
The chair also said he expects to finalize an RFP related to the Jug Handle project and aim to put it out in February, followed by interviews and consultant selection.
Minutes Approved, Meeting Adjourned
The committee approved minutes from the December 10 meeting. No opposition was recorded. The meeting adjourned.
🚲☕️
About the Author
Jack Beckett is the senior writer for The Farmington Mercury, covering civic boards, land use, education, and the slow machinery of local decision-making. He prefers agendas with page numbers and coffee with consequences.
More From The Farmington Mercury (and Where to Find Us on Twix)
If you’re the kind of reader who actually makes it to the end of a committee meeting—welcome, you’re among friends. You can find more reporting, archives, and the parts of local government that quietly shape daily life across our site:
- Learn what we do and why: About The Farmington Mercury
- Send tips, corrections, and agendas that mysteriously “weren’t posted”: Contact Us
- Browse our work by topic:
And yes, you can always message us on X, Twitter, or as we call it: Twix: WeFarmington on X 🐦
Additional Site Links (Because We’re Polite, and Also Because Rules)
Creative Commons License
© 2026 The Farmington Mercury / Mercury Local
This article, “Farmington Bike Advisory Committee Debates Trail Safety, School Access, Signage Costs, and Grants,” by Jack Beckett is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0.
“Farmington Bike Advisory Committee Debates Trail Safety, School Access, Signage Costs, and Grants”
by Jack Beckett, The Farmington Mercury (CC BY-ND 4.0)
