Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portsmouth weighs formal traffic‑calming policy after Waterview pilot
Summary
City Engineer James Wright outlined traffic‑calming tools, costs and eligibility criteria and asked council for guidance on a draft policy after a Waterview pilot, noting tradeoffs between city‑led prioritization and resident petitions, funding constraints, and emergency‑service impacts.
City Engineer James Wright on Tuesday told the Portsmouth City Council that traffic calming is intended to slow traffic on residential streets without restricting access and that a mix of nonphysical and physical measures can be used depending on roadway type and documented need.
"Traffic calming is intended to slow traffic on residential streets without restricting access," Wright said, summarizing the city’s draft approach. He distinguished traffic calming from regulatory traffic control, noting that stop signs are not intended to control speed and that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices requires an engineering warrant study before installing regulatory devices.
Wright listed low‑cost, nonphysical measures — pavement markings, speed‑limit signs, and speed display trailers — and showed geometric and vertical devices such as chicanes, mini‑roundabouts, curb extensions, speed humps and speed tables. He provided typical cost ranges: speed humps about $2,000–$3,000; speed tables $5,000–$10,000; raised intersections upward of $25,000; chicanes about $5,000 each; medians roughly $10,000; curb extensions $2,000–$10,000; and speed‑display signs about $10,000–$12,000.
Wright said the city’s draft policy would generally prioritize residential streets (and some collectors) and rely on engineering studies that examine vehicle counts, accident data, mean speed, the 85th‑percentile speed, and maximum observed speeds. He described a phased implementation sequence: public education, nonintrusive measures, targeted enforcement, and — only after review with emergency services — permanent in‑pavement devices. Wright also said the city is considering petition thresholds of 60 percent for initial measures and 75 percent for physical devices and proposes evaluation intervals at six and 12 months.
Council members praised the presentation but split on how the program should be governed. Vice Mayor Moody said he favors a case‑by‑case approach while asking staff to produce clear documentation on how residents report problems. Councilwoman Thomas urged staff to guard against inequities for neighborhoods with lower civic engagement and asked whether petition thresholds counted residents or homeowners. Councilman Hugo pressed for objective thresholds that would trigger a study so the city can respond consistently rather than ad hoc.
Several councilmembers suggested combining proactive city identification of hot spots with a resident petition pathway. Staff and council also discussed enforcement limits — targeted police enforcement can be effective but often disappears over time — and the absence of a dedicated traffic‑calming line in the city budget. Carter told the council that many in‑pavement measures in Portsmouth have arrived as part of other capital projects or grant‑funded pilots.
Next steps: staff will refine the draft policy and return with recommendations on eligibility, petition mechanics, equity safeguards, emergency‑services review and funding options so council can decide whether to formalize a program or continue a case‑by‑case approach.
