Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming Speed Humps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oakdale council adopts formal speed-hump policy after years of resident requests
Summary
The council approved a resolution establishing a data-driven process for requesting, evaluating and installing speed humps, including petition thresholds, traffic-speed criteria, design standards, and a removal process; funding may be by the city or by resident self-funding.
The Oakdale City Council voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution creating a formal speed-hump policy that establishes eligibility, petition requirements, design standards and an appeals and removal process.
City Manager Jerry presented the policy, saying residents had repeatedly requested traffic calming and the city lacked a structured approach. The policy sets objective eligibility criteria: a maximum daily traffic volume under 3,500 vehicles, a minimum street length of 700 feet, and a traffic study requirement showing either that the 85th percentile speed is 7 mph or greater above the posted limit or that 60% of vehicles travel at an unsafe speed. The policy requires a petition signed by at least 75% of adjacent households within the defined block area and a street evaluation score of at least 85 out of 100 on a matrix that considers volume, speed, geometry, collisions and emergency access.
Design standards in the policy reference the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Caltrans; staff described typical speed-hump dimensions as 12–22 feet long and 3–4 inches high and said advanced warning signs and pavement markings would be required. The policy prohibits installation on arterials, collectors and identified emergency routes and requires traffic-safety committee review; council approval is required to authorize funding and installation.
The policy also includes removal and appeals procedures. Removal requires a resident petition of greater than 75% and a minimum 12-month waiting period after installation; if removed, a street is ineligible for reapplication for five years. Staff said funding can come from the city general fund or from resident self-funding and noted that self-funding would reduce the general-fund burden.
During public comment, resident Jim Engel described a recent crash on River Bluff Drive involving a drunk driver that damaged a newly purchased vehicle and said the incident motivated his request for traffic calming in his neighborhood. Jerry provided a cost example for River Bluff Drive showing an estimated total of approximately $6,600 for a set of portable, anchored sections, signs and shipping — a per-household estimate of roughly $140 if the roughly 45–50 homes on the street shared the cost.
Council discussion touched on likely demand for the program, the time needed to gather petitions and conduct studies, and equity concerns about neighborhoods that can self-fund versus those that cannot. Staff said the city currently has no dedicated budget for a widespread installation program but could pursue funding availability at midyear or in next year’s budget. After discussion a motion to approve the resolution passed by roll-call vote, 5-0.
