Essex Junction council reviews draft traffic-calming policy after months of staff work

Essex Junction — City staff on Aug. 13 presented a draft traffic-calming policy that expands the city’s options for slowing vehicles, replaces the neighborhood petition step in some cases and creates a scoring system to prioritize projects.

The draft, prepared by Community Development Director Chris Ewing with research by a UVM student and input from police, public works and city engineering, would add measures beyond the current “Drive 25” cones and speed tables — including mini-roundabouts, chicanes, raised crosswalks, median islands, radar feedback signs and temporary (pilot) installations.

The policy aims to focus limited city resources on the highest-impact locations by applying a scoring rubric when a request is received and by allowing staff to recommend pilot projects before any permanent work. “We are not going to solve this problem. No matter what we do here and in this policy, people will continue to speed,” Ewing said, calling the draft a “pathway” for future work rather than a cure-all.

Why it matters: councilors and staff stressed the plan would change how residents request work. The existing process requires petition signatures from 70% of households on a street before implementation. The draft recommends replacing that requirement with a prioritized scoring approach and public meetings run through a city advisory committee so the city can move more proposals forward — especially short-term pilot projects — and better marshal limited capital funds.

What staff proposed and why: Chris Ewing said the current policy produced only three speed-table installations historically and that the 70% petition threshold likely creates an implementation bottleneck. The draft would keep the technical speed threshold — an 80th-percentile speed more than 5 mph above the posted limit — but would apply that result to a points-based ranking that also factors crash history, land use and pedestrian exposure. Staff suggested the Bike-Walk Advisory Committee as a likely venue for the public meeting stage, with Community Development coordinating projects and engineering, police and public works involved in design and review.

Police and measurement: Corporal Greg described the city’s data collection tools — small radar boxes (about $2,500 each) that count volume and speed in both directions and produce vehicle-length estimates. He said the department currently has two such units and can typically support about five studies per year without additional equipment or staff time. He warned that manufacturer limits, placement constraints (line-of-sight, parked cars, lamp/utility pole availability) and battery life affect where and how long a unit can be deployed. "I try and pick the best place that meets all those goals," Greg said when asked how sites are chosen.

Emergency services and roadway class: Councilors and staff repeatedly urged that emergency response be considered. Several councilors asked that public works, fire and Essex Rescue sign off on projects affecting class 2/major roads. Jeff Kirschner, the city engineer, and public works staff warned some measures (for example, fixed raised intersections) can substantially increase cost and require drainage or curb work. Staff noted temporary rubber speed humps and painted configurations can be far cheaper and allow testing before committing to permanent reconstruction.

Pilots, costs and funding: The draft favors pilot projects where feasible. Staff cited costs ranging widely: temporary rubber speed humps and planters can be $1,000–$2,000 per element; radar feedback signs $4,000–$7,000; small curb extensions or median islands $10,000–$25,000; and raised intersections $25,000–$70,000 depending on drainage and reconstruction needs. A larger-scale project cited from Burlington cost roughly $150,000. Staff recommended the city consider a modest dedicated fund for pilots while reserving larger-scale permanent changes for the capital planning process.

Public input and petition concerns: Several councilors said they supported moving away from the 70% petition as currently written but were concerned about a single resident triggering a design change without neighborhood notice. Staff proposed multiple safeguards: mailed notices, posted signs at the site, committee review, and an explicit public meeting before installation. Staff and the Bike-Walk Advisory Committee said pilot projects reduce the risk of imposing permanent changes without adequate feedback because temporary measures can be removed if they fail.

Next steps and council view: Councilors signaled support for the general direction, asking staff to refine criteria for when a petition may be bypassed, clarify which committee will host public meetings, and estimate added data-collection capacity and budget needs in the FY 2026 draft budget. Michael Jagera, city planner, reported that the Bike-Walk Advisory Committee had “resounding support” for participating in the review and public engagement stages. The council did not take a formal vote on policy adoption that night.

Ending: Staff will return a revised draft that incorporates council direction on petition thresholds, committee review and budgeted capacity for before-and-after data collection, and will include clearer emergency-response signoffs before a future adoption vote.