Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broussard council adopts traffic-calming policy after resident’s testimony
Summary
The Broussard City Council on March 25 adopted Ordinance 25-822, establishing a formal process for traffic-calming devices in residential neighborhoods after a resident described safety concerns where a privately removed speed bump had previously been installed.
The City of Broussard City Council on March 25 adopted Ordinance 25-822, establishing a policy and formal process for installing traffic-calming devices, including speed bumps, in residential neighborhoods.
The ordinance creates criteria and an application process for residents to request traffic-calming measures and confirms that speed bumps installed by the city are city property and must be removed only by city crews. The council voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance.
The ordinance was introduced as “an ordinance fixing and adopting policy for traffic calming devices in residential neighborhoods” and taken up for adoption at the March 25 meeting. The council noted the item had been discussed at the prior meeting and that the ordinance text was included in the meeting packet.
During the public-comment period for that agenda item, Robert Singleton, a Broussard resident, described multiple crashes on East Roosevelt and said that a speed bump previously placed on his street had been removed by persons he believed were neighbors. “We had a speed bump put in there. . . . They physically took it off of the road,” Singleton said. He described a motorcycle crash on his street that proved fatal and other near-misses; the council and staff responded that the ordinance will provide a clear, city-administered process so residents can seek official traffic-calming measures.
A city official clarified the city ‘‘owns the road’’ and therefore the city owns and is responsible for installed traffic-calming devices; private citizens removing a city-installed speed bump would be acting illegally. The official told the council the ordinance is intended to give residents a consistent mechanism to request devices and to prevent ad hoc installations or removals.
Vote at the meeting: District 1 — yes; District 2 — yes; District 3 — yes; District 4 — yes; District 5 — yes; District 6 — yes; At large — yes. Motion approved.
The council did not specify implementation dates or a timetable for when installed devices would appear; staff and the ordinance text will govern application and maintenance steps going forward.
The meeting adjourned after the council completed its remaining business.
