Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee steps back from rigid traffic‑calming scoring matrix; staff to collect more input
Summary
After testing a draft prioritization matrix on recent traffic studies, staff and the committee concluded the weighted matrix produced skewed results; the committee will collect the underlying data, solicit additional stakeholder feedback and return the policy for review in September with a planned adoption timeline in October
Committee members and staff on Aug. 13 agreed the draft traffic‑calming prioritization matrix needs refinement after a test run produced unexpected rankings.
Public Health and Safety Committee Chair Jane Borat said the committee intends the traffic‑calming policy to be a transparent framework for residents who bring concerns. “It gives you the ability to say to us … here are the factors that are relevant to your decision making,” Borat said, describing the intended public‑facing guidance.
Chief John String and staff presented results of running four recent traffic studies through the draft matrix. String said the matrix sometimes ranked proactively studied locations higher than locations with community complaints because factors such as average daily traffic skewed results. “We actually found that the 1 track study that we did that was just a proactive study … ranked highest on the prioritization scale,” String said.
As a result, staff recommended collecting the full set of data and using the matrix as guidance rather than a rigid scoring tool. The committee asked staff to continue collecting required data and to convene internal staff — the manager, public works director, and chief — to make holistic recommendations when multiple locations compete for resources.
Timeline and next steps discussed at the meeting included an internal review and a planned committee discussion in September, outreach to Montgomery County Planning Commission and the fire company, a finance & administration recommendation in October, and expected council consideration in October. The committee also agreed there should be a public review period during the September meetings.
No formal vote to adopt policy was taken; the committee directed staff to gather additional stakeholder input, run further tests, and return with a revised policy and an adoption recommendation.
