Worcester committee hears residents on 28 District 2 speed‑hump petitions; one petition withdrawn, petitions filed for later review

The City Council standing committee on traffic and parking on Oct. 22 heard public testimony on 28 petitions to install speed humps across District 2, as residents and city staff debated the program’s reach, costs and safety tradeoffs. The committee approved procedural actions including withdrawing one petition for Sherbrooke Avenue as already completed and filing the batch of petitions for later review.

The meeting, convened by Chairperson Councillor Collorio, focused on petitions submitted over the last year under the city’s speed‑hump petition process for District 2. “This is the speed humps that were suggested through the, you know, all you guys sent in these agenda items over the last probably like 9 months for District 2,” Collorio said at the start of the meeting.

The core technical presentation came from Steve Raleigh, Commissioner of Transportation and Mobility, who described the city’s multi‑year pilot and roll‑out. “This is the fifth year now that we have had a speed hump installation program in the city of Worcester. It started out as a pilot program with 20 temporary speed humps,” Raleigh said. He told the committee the program installed 82 speed humps this year — a mix of temporary and permanent — and that “in total this summer, we have, over 100 speed humps that are out on the streets, at this time, considering both the temporary and the permanent speed humps.”

Why it matters: the petitions prompted sharply divided neighborhood testimony about when humps are appropriate and how the city should allocate limited traffic‑calming resources. Residents in favor said humps slow deliveries and cut‑through traffic near schools and parks; residents opposed called the devices an unnecessary expense, disruptive to plowing and emergency response, and potentially harmful to vehicles and drainage.

Public testimony and local concerns

Dozens of residents spoke, often street by street. Supporters on streets such as Alvarado Avenue, Plantation Street, Superior Road and Barnes Avenue said speeding and cut‑through traffic endangered pedestrians and schoolchildren. For example, a caller identified as Thomas Sayers, who said he lives at 35 Colby Ave., told the committee, “There’s kids in the neighborhood. It’s a straight, you know, straightaway street. We honestly need probably more than one.”

Opponents described narrow streets, limited traffic, existing sidewalks or recent roadwork as reasons to reject humps. Wendy Mancini, a Sherbrooke Avenue resident, said, “I am against the speed bumps. I do not believe we need them... It also adds harm and damage to your cars, even at the very slow speed of rolling over them, shocks, suspension, etcetera, wear and tear on your tires.” Several other Sherbrooke and nearby residents said they had not received prior notice of permanent installations and objected to permanent work that followed temporary trials.

Engineering, timing and limits

Raleigh and Assistant Commissioner Todd Coran explained the program’s typical process: trial locations with temporary, seasonal humps (installed from late spring through October) and, if trials prove effective using speed, volume and crash data, convert some locations to permanent asphalt humps in later years. Raleigh said the department only installs permanent humps on streets with acceptable grades and other engineering criteria. “We can only apply speed humps on streets that have less than an 8% grade, for safety reasons,” he said when discussing Indian Lake Parkway.

Raleigh estimated the city might add roughly 40 new trial locations in the upcoming program year, pending budget decisions. He said permanent hump contracts returned bids typically in the range of $5,000 to $7,000 per hump, noting permanent installations become more cost‑effective than temporary humps over time because temporary units carry recurring install/remove costs.

Enforcement, alternatives and equipment

Several councilors and residents said alternatives — police enforcement, pole‑mounted radar signs, or trailer‑mounted radar units — deserve consideration. Police Sergeant Foley (Worcester Police Department) told the committee the department currently deploys five pole‑mounted radar signs and five trailer units (three typically deployed), and emphasized maintenance constraints such as battery life and the need to remove trailers in inclement weather. The committee also discussed the high demand for devices and limited supply; Raleigh confirmed pole signs cost roughly $5,000–$6,000 and trailers can approach $10,000.

Decisions and formal actions

- The committee approved a motion by Councillor Kawson for a leave to withdraw the Sherbrooke Avenue petition (3C) after residents and staff confirmed permanent humps were already under construction following an earlier trial. Roll call recorded Councillors Bergman, King and Chairperson Collorio as voting yes and the motion passed.

- The committee approved a motion to file petitions 3A–3Z and 3AA–3BB and to hold informational item 4A for later district‑by‑district consideration. The motion passed by roll call vote (Councillors Bergman, King and Chairperson Collorio recorded as voting yes).

Next steps and how residents follow up

Raleigh said staff will analyze each petition site for speeds, volumes, grade and crash history over the coming months, then confer with District 2’s councilor, Councilor Candy Merrill Carlson, to set a prioritized program for the next installation season and budget cycle. Residents who oppose any installed temporary or permanent hump were told they may file a petition with the council requesting removal and also may contact the department at mobility@worcesterma.gov or the Mobility office phone number provided during the meeting.

The committee’s hearing collected detailed neighborhood input that staff will use in the department’s engineering review and in a forthcoming report to council that summarizes trial results, recommended conversions to permanent humps and budget needs.