Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagstaff proposes stricter thresholds, new neighborhood-approval rules for traffic calming
Summary
Transportation staff proposed narrowing eligibility and tightening neighborhood-approval procedures for the residential traffic management program, recommending new speed-based thresholds and a 65% resident-signature requirement to initiate study and improvements.
City of Flagstaff transportation staff on Jan. 1, 2025 presented proposed updates to the Residential Traffic Management Guide intended to focus limited resources on the city’s worst speeding and comfort problems and to shorten processing timelines.
David Lemke, Transportation Engineer for the City of Flagstaff, told the Transportation Commission the program, active since 2012, has no dedicated capital budget, that traffic-calming projects can be expensive and time-consuming, and that 15 projects have qualified in the past five years. “Projects can be or become expensive if infrastructure changes are required. The Boulder Point Woodland Drive traffic calming project, for example, cost approximately $500,000 to complete,” Lemke said.
Staff recommended simplifying the current multifaceted thresholds into clearer, speed-oriented criteria tied to roadway classification. Under the proposal, minor collectors would qualify for traffic calming when the 80th-percentile speed exceeds 32 mph and when more than 30% of vehicles travel at least 5 mph over the speed limit; local roads would qualify when the 80th-percentile speed exceeds 30 mph and when more than 30% of vehicles exceed the limit by 5 mph. Lemke explained the city’s modeling of prior projects shows those metrics are effective both in selecting problem corridors and in demonstrating measurable outcomes after improvements.
To ensure local buy-in before staff time is expended, the draft guide would require the requesting citizen to collect signatures from 65% of residents within a defined project boundary to initiate traffic-data collection; staff said the boundary would be defined at intake so residents understand who will be affected. Lemke said the proposal is intended to reduce the program’s backlog and prioritize the locations with the worst measurable speeding problems. Commissioners discussed prioritization approaches; several suggested using a ranked list of pending projects (worst to least worst) rather than strict first-come, first-served processing.
Staff offered a menu of mitigation tools with different cost profiles: low-cost options such as radar feedback signs (~$4,000–$5,000) and higher-cost infrastructure such as traffic circles. Commissioners asked staff to show concrete recent examples of the boundary-drawing and signature-collection process at a future meeting. Lemke said staff will return with a revised document in April and requested feedback on thresholds, neighborhood-approval procedures and ranking/prioritization methods.
Commissioners and staff also discussed related programs and coordination: the Active Transportation (bicycle/pedestrian) program handles comfort and safety issues tied to nonmotorized users; the residential traffic guide is intended to be narrowly focused on speed and volume comfort issues that residents report. No votes were taken; staff will draft revised language and bring the guide back to the commission in April for approval.
