Town of Greenwich unveils draft Safe Streets Action Plan, names 20 priority locations and seeks federal implementation funding

Town of Greenwich officials and consultants presented the draft Safe Streets Action Plan at a public forum in March 2026, outlining a data-driven effort to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries and to position the town for competitive federal implementation funding.

Michael Kislak, a civil engineer in the Department of Public Works, said the plan was developed with funding from the federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and combines crash trends, risk predictors and public input to prioritize safety investments. "This grant... focused on eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries," Kislak said, describing the plan as both a near-term work program and a roadmap for larger construction projects if implementation funds are awarded.

The plan’s analysis identified a concentrated problem: "All of Greenwich's traffic fatalities and injuries were actually happening only on 10% of the roads," a Stantec consultant, Kate, told the forum, noting that addresses roughly 27 miles of roadway. The team compiled those findings into a "prioritized investment network" that lists about 20 locations for near-term improvements and a longer list to update as projects are completed.

Recommendations range from quick-build, tactical measures — similar to a recent traffic-calming demonstration at Western Middle School — to larger design projects that require repaving or corridor work. The action plan also includes a 16-item policy toolbox covering leadership and coordination, data and transparency, roadway design and education and community engagement.

Officials said the town will coordinate with the state Department of Transportation on Route 1, which accounts for several high-priority segments but is a state-owned facility. Kislak said Greenwich broke Route 1 into three typologies (downtown, the Costco/denser area, and the east-side segments near I‑95) to clarify what treatments the town would like the state to consider.

On funding and timing, presenters said the implementation grant application for SS4A is typically due in early summer; the town hopes to finalize the action plan by late spring or early summer to remain competitive. Kislak and others described SS4A implementation grants as reimbursement awards with an 80% federal share and a 20% local match.

Residents used the Q&A to press several local concerns. Multiple speakers from Riverside urged more enforcement and flashing crosswalks near schools; Joan Thakur, a Riverside resident, said speeding is "really an issue" where sidewalks end and called for prioritizing that corridor. Maggie Cassidy, a Shore Road resident, said she and 25 neighbors submitted a petition to DPW asking for sidewalks and offered to host officials on-site.

Signal phasing on Route 1 drew sharp questions. One attendee said she was "vehemently opposed" to converting exclusive pedestrian phasing to concurrent phasing; DPW staff and consultants replied that both phasing strategies are engineering tools whose safety depends on context and that leading pedestrian intervals and monitoring would be used if concurrent phasing is implemented.

On technical points, residents asked whether crash "fault" had been analyzed. Kate said fault is often hard to determine from crash reports, so the team focused on crash frequency, turning movements and vehicle volumes and designed interventions to make mistakes less likely to cause severe harm.

Officials closed the presentation by inviting attendees to interactive boards in the back of the room and keeping the public comment period open through March for feedback that will be folded into the final draft.

Next steps include continued public outreach via the posted materials, refinement of concept plans for priority locations, coordination with state DOT on Route 1, and preparation of the SS4A implementation grant application if the town proceeds toward construction funding.