Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Speed Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfield councilmembers debate speed humps, rumble strips and road narrowing; no action taken
Summary
Councilmembers discussed several traffic-calming options for neighborhood streets — speed humps, embedded rumble devices, and road-narrowing/dips — citing safety for children and concerns about noise, trailers and costs; bids were mentioned but no vote or formal direction was recorded.
Fairfield councilmembers spent a substantial portion of their meeting debating how best to slow speeding on neighborhood streets, weighing safety benefits against noise, vehicle wear and cost.
Speaker 3 led the discussion and repeatedly framed the issue as a safety concern for children, saying, "Somebody's gonna get squished," and describing repeated instances of motorists ignoring a flashing 36 mph sign. He and others described three leading options: speed humps designed for about 20 mph, embedded rumble strips, and roadway narrowing or dips.
Several speakers said rumble strips would be problematic because they generate constant noise for nearby residents. "Rumble strips is a great idea, but it's noisy for the people that we're gonna be buying," Speaker 3 said. Speaker 4 and others favored creating a narrow roadway or a dip near bus stops so drivers must slow, citing examples from other towns such as Pleasant Grove and White Hills.
Cost figures and vendor bids were discussed but not formalized. Speaker 3 said he had collected bids and video evidence, noting an embedded, mobile rumble product was quoted "about $6" and a permanent asphalt hump "about $10" as stated in the meeting. Participants repeatedly emphasized that while cost matters, safety was the primary concern: "Cost doesn't bother me. Period," Speaker 3 said, adding the expense is preferable to potential injuries and emergency costs.
Council members also raised practical concerns: speed humps can damage trailers and fifth wheels, and any physical measure placed on one street may be circumvented by drivers taking alternate routes. Multiple speakers said solutions would need to be applied consistently on connected streets to be effective.
No formal motion to adopt a specific traffic-calming measure was made during the discussion, and the council did not direct staff to implement a particular option by the end of the meeting. The conversation concluded with general agreement to continue exploring alternatives and gather more detailed cost and design information.
The discussion is expected to return to a future agenda if members bring forward specific proposals or bids for formal consideration.
