Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Topeka officials outline neighborhood‑led traffic‑calming policy after successful pilot
Summary
City staff presented a draft traffic‑calming policy emphasizing neighborhood partnership and data‑driven eligibility; a Northeast Division pilot reduced average speeds by roughly 5–6 mph, and the city plans additional pilots and neighborhood meetings before permanent installations.
Director Tryion told the Public Infrastructure Committee that the proposed traffic‑calming policy is intended to be a partnership between neighborhoods and city staff, combining engineering, enforcement and education to reduce vehicle speeds and improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The policy would prioritize local roads as classified by the Kansas Department of Transportation, typically roads with posted speed limits of 30 mph or lower, two travel lanes and not serving as primary access to commercial or industrial sites. Director Tryion said qualifying locations would generally show average daily traffic volumes between about 300 and 2,000 vehicles per day and have pedestrian activity (he cited a minimum benchmark of roughly 10 pedestrians during peak hours). He said staff would measure speeds and use the 85th‑percentile as a key test: “If 85% of drivers are driving the speed limit plus 3 mph or less, then that would not be a good candidate for traffic calming,” he said.
Staff described a point‑scoring evaluation that would account for traffic volumes, crash history, number of resident complaints, posted speeds and the presence of vulnerable pedestrians (for example, children). Where a permanent device is considered, the city would first try temporary installations, measure effects, and hold neighborhood meetings before moving to permanent construction. Design considerations include maintaining stormwater drainage and ensuring emergency and service vehicles can navigate devices.
The director reviewed physical and non‑physical tools the city would use: pavement markings and other visual measures, speed tables (described as roughly 12 feet wide with 3–4 inches rise), chokers, raised crosswalks, traffic circles, crosswalk refuges and, in extreme cut‑through cases, diverters. He cautioned that traditional speed bumps are not recommended because of their steepness and impact on vehicles.
The committee heard results from a pilot on Northeast Division near a school, where staff installed four speed humps and two speed tables. According to the presentation, measured average speeds after installation fell by about 5–6 miles per hour and the 85th‑percentile speeds dropped so that 85% of drivers were below the posted limit; staff said it had been chosen because the long straight stretch allowed drivers to reach inappropriate speeds for a residential street.
Council members pressed staff on specific locations. Councilwoman Ortiz asked whether an intersection she cited would meet the criteria; staff said prior data showed low traffic volumes there but agreed to pull additional counts and meet with residents. Committee members also asked about costs; staff said the Quinton Heights pilot is budgeted at about $60,000 and that permanent physical devices are typically asphalt construction.
Next steps, as described for the committee, include additional pilots (the director named an upcoming project on 24th Street near Quinton Heights), public meetings to solicit neighborhood input for any proposed installation, and publishing the data‑driven criteria so residents can understand how decisions are made. Council members said they would notify constituents when staff performs data collection so counts reflect normal conditions.
The committee did not vote on a formal ordinance or policy at the meeting; staff will continue pilots, collect data and return with neighborhood‑level outreach and recommendations.
