I wholeheartedly support a review of the Traffic Calming Program. While choosing a town in the Cleveland metro area to move to, the presence of speed bumps, bollards, and bump-outs in Lakewood indicated that this city prioritizes pedestrian safety. I am grateful for the progress this program has made to date, and I am excited to see what we can achieve in the future with additional updates.
As we consider revisions, we should aim to add neighbor- and pedestrian-centric criteria to the program. Driver-centric metrics like the 85th percentile rule can't adequately capture the diverse perspectives of a street. Surveys of street residents and car crash reports, especially those involving pedestrians, bikers, and microtransit users, can and should be used as qualifying criteria for installing traffic calming within the city.
We live in a car-centric world that often prioritizes drivers' needs over those of neighbors, pedestrians, bikers, and microtransit users. Many of these non-car users are children and older adults. We have an opportunity to expand and refine this program so everyone can enjoy the wonderful city we have.
I support this review of the Traffic Calming Program, particularly the proposal to evaluate whether the current process and thresholds continue to reflect best practices. As a resident of a street that went through the traffic calming process (Lauderdale), I can say that it required a significant investment of time from both residents and City staff. Neighbors were asked to gather signatures twice—first to qualify for traffic data collection and again to demonstrate support for installing speed tables. After that work, we were told that due to the length of our street, it warranted four speed tables but ultimately received only three. While the project has helped, speeding remains a frequent problem, particularly near both ends of the street. Looking back, I think this experience raises important questions about whether the process should focus not only on building consensus, but also on achieving the intended safety outcome. If a traffic calming project is justified by data and supported by the neighborhood, it should be designed to effectively address the documented problem. I appreciate that this proposal asks whether the resident engagement process, project prioritization, and available traffic calming treatments should be reconsidered. Those are worthwhile discussions, and I hope the review results in a program that is both easier to navigate and more effective at improving safety.
I wholeheartedly support a review of the Traffic Calming Program. While choosing a town in the Cleveland metro area to move to, the presence of speed bumps, bollards, and bump-outs in Lakewood indicated that this city prioritizes pedestrian safety. I am grateful for the progress this program has made to date, and I am excited to see what we can achieve in the future with additional updates.
As we consider revisions, we should aim to add neighbor- and pedestrian-centric criteria to the program. Driver-centric metrics like the 85th percentile rule can't adequately capture the diverse perspectives of a street. Surveys of street residents and car crash reports, especially those involving pedestrians, bikers, and microtransit users, can and should be used as qualifying criteria for installing traffic calming within the city.
We live in a car-centric world that often prioritizes drivers' needs over those of neighbors, pedestrians, bikers, and microtransit users. Many of these non-car users are children and older adults. We have an opportunity to expand and refine this program so everyone can enjoy the wonderful city we have.
I support this review of the Traffic Calming Program, particularly the proposal to evaluate whether the current process and thresholds continue to reflect best practices. As a resident of a street that went through the traffic calming process (Lauderdale), I can say that it required a significant investment of time from both residents and City staff. Neighbors were asked to gather signatures twice—first to qualify for traffic data collection and again to demonstrate support for installing speed tables. After that work, we were told that due to the length of our street, it warranted four speed tables but ultimately received only three. While the project has helped, speeding remains a frequent problem, particularly near both ends of the street. Looking back, I think this experience raises important questions about whether the process should focus not only on building consensus, but also on achieving the intended safety outcome. If a traffic calming project is justified by data and supported by the neighborhood, it should be designed to effectively address the documented problem. I appreciate that this proposal asks whether the resident engagement process, project prioritization, and available traffic calming treatments should be reconsidered. Those are worthwhile discussions, and I hope the review results in a program that is both easier to navigate and more effective at improving safety.