Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assistant engineering director outlines traffic-calming policy, scoring and resident petition process
Summary
Assistant director Todd Art reviewed the city's traffic-calming policy (adopted 2008, revised 2023), explained the 80-point qualification threshold, petition and five-day count process, and described neighborhood ballots that require 65% of returned ballots in favor to install calming measures.
The city’s assistant director of engineering, Todd Art, presented an overview of the traffic-calming policy, how staff evaluate requests and how measures are implemented and removed.
Art summarized the policy history — a resident committee drafted the policy in 2007 and the city adopted it in 2008; council revisions in 2023 clarified evaluation areas and ballot thresholds. He explained the goal: physically alter roadway geometry to reduce average speeds (for example, raised islands, medians, traffic circles and speed dips) rather than relying on signage alone.
Key process details: a resident petition initiates a study; staff deploy counters for at least five days (including a weekend and avoiding summer and winter months) to collect ADT, speeds and volumes; the city uses a scoring matrix where 80 points qualifies a roadway for traffic calming; staff develop a preliminary design and host a public open house; emergency services review the final design; and a mail-back ballot is mailed to driveways within 300 feet of the study area. The ballot requires 65% of returned ballots in favor for installation to proceed. Art said removal petitions follow a similar 65% returned-ballot threshold.
Art emphasized limits: traffic calming reduces average speeds but will not prevent reckless driving or address every complaint. He also described implementation timing (6–9 months typical) and noted the city completed several evaluations in recent years and expects more requests in the current year.
Board members asked clarifying questions about design choices, which measures are most common (dips are the prevailing treatment) and how neighborhoods may be affected; Art said dips are favored for maintenance and plow compatibility but that the design is case-by-case to accommodate larger vehicles and emergency apparatus.
The board received the presentation; staff will continue to apply the policy and bring qualifying locations forward for open houses and ballots.
