Des Moines unveils three‑phase neighborhood traffic‑calming program, names five pilot locations

Des Moines City staff presented a new neighborhood traffic‑calming framework April 3 that formalizes how the city will handle resident speeding complaints and prioritizes locations for physical traffic calming.

The program uses a three‑phase approach. In Phase 1 the city will accept resident reports through a new online submission form and then conduct a three‑day automated traffic study using magnetic counters to measure speed and volume. Eligibility criteria include a minimum daily traffic threshold, at least 20% of vehicles recorded exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour, and that the street is a neighborhood/local classification (arterials are excluded). Phase 2 uses temporary measures — signage, temporary radar feedback signs and targeted enforcement coordinated with the police department. If speeds persist and 85th‑percentile speeds exceed the limit by 10 mph, the city will move to Phase 3. Phase 3 applies a point‑based scoring system (minimum 20 points) that considers traffic volume, speed, cut‑through traffic, crash history and pedestrian facilities; qualifying corridors may receive physical measures such as speed humps, speed cushions or permanent radar signs.

The presentation noted the city lacks a standardized process today and that staff used examples from nearby cities and a consultant to develop the procedure. Staff said an online submission form will be posted on the city website “by the end of the month.” Alyssa Beaver, who briefed the council, emphasized the program aims to be transparent, prioritize the most severe locations and manage limited funding.

Council members asked about operational details and tradeoffs. Deputy Mayor Steinmetz asked how the city defines the neighborhood corridor that receives a ballot or survey; staff said property owners within roughly 600 feet of the corridor and anyone who uses that access as their primary route will be included in survey outreach. Members pressed staff on safety tradeoffs on long downgrades (for example, Fourth Avenue) and were told engineering may recommend multiple devices, different device types (circles, cushions) or alternative designs instead of a single speed hump. Members also asked about staffing and backlog: Public Works said a queue is likely as public requests increase and that funding and planned pavement overlays can affect timing so projects may be combined with planned resurfacing to avoid rework.

On costs, staff said traffic studies use in‑house equipment and crews; the study cost was estimated roughly at $1,500 when staff hours are included. Council members suggested publishing previous study results publicly and doing pre‑ and post‑resident surveys after pilot installations to build community trust in engineering recommendations.

Staff identified five pilot locations that scored high under the criteria and will be monitored after installation: Eighth Avenue South; S 229 (as written in staff materials); Thirtieth; 20 First (as written in staff materials); and Fourteenth Place South. The pilot installations and subsequent monitoring will shape whether the program expands and how points and replacement/mitigation are adjusted.

The presentation was informational; staff requested no committee action at this time. Council members expressed support for the transparent three‑phase structure and asked staff to return with data from pilots and a plan for online public reporting of study results.

Ending: Staff said findings from the pilot locations will be monitored and adjustments made before wider rollout; council members asked staff to publish study results and consider resident pre‑/post‑surveys when evaluating effectiveness.