Multimodal board to study stripe, island, bike‑route and cushion options after speed study for Shirley and Arlington

The Birmingham Multimodal Board voted to ask city staff to study a narrowed set of speed‑mitigation measures for Shirley and Arlington streets and to consult the City of Beverly Hills about modular speed cushions, after staff and police presented traffic counts showing little change in driver speeds after reconstruction.

City staff presented data gathered in January and December that, according to the presentation, show “the speed data that was done before and after is about the same,” said Julie (consultant). The packet and staff remarks note the city commission asked the Multimodal Board to review mitigation options after a commission motion on Aug. 26, 2024.

The nut of the discussion was whether to pursue low‑cost signage and striping, physical curb islands or bike facilities, or more intrusive vertical measures such as speed cushions or humps. The board voted to direct staff to study options labeled 2 (striped parking/shoulder), 3 (traffic calming islands), 4 (eliminate on‑street parking and add bike lanes) and 6 (cycle track on one side), and to request information from Beverly Hills on temporary or bolt‑on speed cushions. The motion carried with two recorded no votes and the remainder in favor; board members Laura England and Thomas Peerds were recorded as voting no.

Why it matters: residents asked the city commission to revisit speeds after the Shirley/Arlington reconstruction, and the commission referred the request to the Multimodal Board. The board’s study will determine what, if any, mitigations are feasible now that the roadway is rebuilt and special assessments have not yet been finalized.

What the data show and what staff proposed Staff said police radar and automated counters collected roughly 2,000 speed readings across several sessions, including a 44‑minute radar snapshot used to illustrate the distribution. The packet states the city’s prima facie speed limit on residential streets is 25 mph; staff reported an 80th‑percentile (the speed at or below which 80% of traffic travels) “right around 30 miles an hour” on Shirley/Arlington in the counts presented.

Julie (consultant) summarized options drawn from NACTO/AASHTO guidance and previous board work: additional posted signs and feedback (speed) boards, painted striped shoulders to visually narrow lanes, curb‑side traffic calming islands, protected bike lanes or a cycle track that would remove on‑street parking, and vertical devices (speed humps, speed tables, or speed cushions). Staff noted tradeoffs: vertical deflection devices require series spacing to be effective, can complicate snow‑plowing and emergency response, and are harder to place where driveway density is high. Painted stripes can be implemented quickly and cheaply but generally yield smaller reductions in average speed.

Several board members reiterated that the board had previously recommended a narrower 26‑foot roadway with bump outs and sidewalks, but the city commission ordered a 33‑foot rebuild; staff said that outcome was a primary reason the board’s earlier, more aggressive calming measures were not installed. Staff also clarified that final special‑assessment bills related to the reconstruction will not be issued until the project is closed and contractor final payment is made, so cost responsibility for any retrofits may require additional commission action.

Board reaction and next steps Members debated whether the presented counts represented a steady state or a transient post‑construction pattern; staff said the December and January counts were consistent with pre‑construction readings. Some members said the volumes and the number of very high outliers were small and questioned whether physical devices that alter the feel of the street would be justified; others urged responsiveness to resident concerns and asked that multiple options remain available for study.

The motion directs staff to return with more detailed analyses of options 2, 3, 4 and 6 and to gather operational information from Beverly Hills about their bolt‑on/temporary speed cushions (options 7 and 8 in the packet). Staff told the board it can bring back recommendations at the March meeting.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Accept November 7 meeting minutes. Outcome: approved. (Mover/second not specified in the record.) - Motion: Accept December 5 meeting minutes. Outcome: approved; one abstention noted in discussion for a member who was absent. (Mover/second not specified in the record.) - Motion: Direct staff to further study mitigation options 2, 3, 4 and 6 and to request information from the City of Beverly Hills on modular speed cushions (options 7 and 8). Outcome: approved (motion carried). Recorded no votes: Laura England, Thomas Peerds; yes votes: remaining members present; exact names for all yes votes not specified in the transcript.