Traffic Calming Projects: Useful or a Waste of $?

[Georgia Guardrail]

What is your opinion on traffic calming projects?  To me, they seem to be a waste of time and money and just make traffic worse.  Especially when they narrow the road shoulders and put in random yellow blinking lights.

I can see their uses for neighborhood roads but for main thoroughfares it seems counterproductive.  Also seems a lazy way out for local communities to get out of actual road improvements that upset the NIMBYs.

But this is just my opinion.  Eager to hear all views on this.

[Rothman]

As always, it depends.  Sometimes, they're good for the community; others, not so much.  Usually dependent on the existing characteristics of the neighborhood.

[paulthemapguy]

If your answer is a catch-all "I like all of them," or "I hate all of them," you haven't done the level of analysis required.  Every situation is different.

[cbeach40]

If your answer is a catch-all "I like all of them," or "I hate all of them," you haven't done the level of analysis required.  Every situation is different.

Very much yes.

I've worked on and experienced countless TCM projects and there's been times when they've worked perfectly, there's times when the measures and execution leaves much to be desired. But never encountered a situation where some kind of TCM wasn't worthwhile.

[Bruce]

Traffic calming in general is a good idea in built-up areas, if only to prevent serious injury and death for people in vehicles and people walking/rolling/biking on those same streets. The cost to society will always outweigh the cost of some fresh paint, bollards, and better curbs.

[hotdogPi]

Traffic calming in general is a good idea in built-up areas, if only to prevent serious injury and death for people in vehicles and people walking/rolling/biking on those same streets. The cost to society will always outweigh the cost of some fresh paint, bollards, and better curbs.

No, the cost is more congestion on other roads.

I firmly believe that if Waze could conceivably route you on a particular road to avoid congestion elsewhere, it should not have traffic calming features. Doing so just puts more traffic on the congested road.

[Max Rockatansky]

Definitely a waste of money if you happen to be Hollister, California.  Fortunately you can always blame the contractor and say the calming measures put in aren't what was intended.

[SEWIGuy]

Traffic calming in general is a good idea in built-up areas, if only to prevent serious injury and death for people in vehicles and people walking/rolling/biking on those same streets. The cost to society will always outweigh the cost of some fresh paint, bollards, and better curbs.

No, the cost is more congestion on other roads.

Which might be an acceptable cost to pay.

[Scott5114]

Traffic calming in general is a good idea in built-up areas, if only to prevent serious injury and death for people in vehicles and people walking/rolling/biking on those same streets. The cost to society will always outweigh the cost of some fresh paint, bollards, and better curbs.

But also the "cost to society" needs to be accurately measured–traffic calming to "protect" people walking/biking should only be considered when there's evidence of people interested in walking/biking there to protect. Traffic calming in Norman would be silly, for instance, because hardly anyone walks or bikes here (the distances are too great and the weather is too shit).

[bing101]

Traffic calming projects are good if it's major downtowns or tourist areas though.

[jdbx]

I would argue that traffic calming is usually put in place to correct for an existing design flaw.  The streets getting these measures were usually laid out long ago, before modern sensibilities of urban design took hold.  Add in the change in traffic patterns that modern habits such as driving children to school (vs walking), or active route-planning and GPS routing brings, and you have lots of situations where streets that were built 50+ years ago to serve a small volume of neighborhood traffic are suddenly fulfilling a very different function.

The best traffic calming measures are to design and maintain the main thoroughfares in such a way that traffic does not need to divert through neighborhoods.  Speed humps, chicanes, and roundabouts are usually just slapping a bandaid on the symptoms vs addressing the root cause.

[jakeroot]

Traffic calming in Norman would be silly, for instance, because hardly anyone walks or bikes here (the distances are too great and the weather is too shit).

In fairness to pioneers, no one walks or bikes anymore. It was a conscious decision to build Norman (and the rest of the OKC metro) out the way they did because the car made it easier to build that way. And yeah, the weather sucks so it was nice to not get soaked on the way home.

They could easily start building tons of density in the middle of Norman. The downtown is there, just not much in the way of apartment towers. Build that, you might get the demand for walking, cycling, and --yes -- traffic calming. But as it exists now, definitely no demand.

[Scott5114]

They could easily start building tons of density in the middle of Norman. The downtown is there, just not much in the way of apartment towers. Build that, you might get the demand for walking, cycling, and --yes -- traffic calming. But as it exists now, definitely no demand.

The major barrier to building density in Norman, or indeed the Oklahoma City metro as a whole, is–get ready for this one–the banks. Any time someone wants to build a multi-use facility of the kind you see in a city like Seattle, banks deny the loan because "that type of development has never been tried in Oklahoma".

So essentially, the only way Oklahoma will ever get dense development is if some wealthy person pays cash to build so much dense development that the banks have no justification for denying loans on that basis. And if you have the cash to do that, there are investment opportunities for you with a far better return on investment that come with the benefit of not having to do anything with Oklahoma.

[jakeroot]

They could easily start building tons of density in the middle of Norman. The downtown is there, just not much in the way of apartment towers. Build that, you might get the demand for walking, cycling, and --yes -- traffic calming. But as it exists now, definitely no demand.

The major barrier to building density in Norman, or indeed the Oklahoma City metro as a whole, is–get ready for this one–the banks. Any time someone wants to build a multi-use facility of the kind you see in a city like Seattle, banks deny the loan because "that type of development has never been tried in Oklahoma".

So essentially, the only way Oklahoma will ever get dense development is if some wealthy person pays cash to build so much dense development that the banks have no justification for denying loans on that basis. And if you have the cash to do that, there are investment opportunities for you with a far better return on investment that come with the benefit of not having to do anything with Oklahoma.

It doesn't even need to be a multi-use facility (like a five over one with ground-level retail). It could even be just a four to six level apartment building. Certainly those exist in parts of Oklahoma? Something that encourages people to live closer together and walk and bike a bit more than they would if they lived way out in the middle of the burbs.

[1995hoo]

I don't necessarily object to traffic calming projects per se if they're implemented in a way that allows you to drive through an area at the speed limit. What I resent is when they overdo it and install very sharp speed bumps (rather than speed humps) and other things that serve as obstacles to driving. Those are often pitched as "traffic calming," but what they really are is a "stay off our street" message. They do things like forcing you to slow to 10 or 15 mph in order to make the driving experience so unpleasant that you'll find another route. If the street is privately-owned and maintained (around here, that usually means HOA streets), then I have less of a problem with them making the street unwelcoming as a cut-through route, but if the street is public, then as much as I understand why residents may dislike thru traffic, I feel people have the right to use the street.

But I do think there's something legitimate to taking measures to try to force people to stick to the speed limit in heavily residential areas. There was a woman up the end of our street (I think she's moved away now) who used to come flying around the corner and didn't care that some of the neighborhood kids were often playing in or near the street, people would be walking dogs, etc. She's the type of person that causes speed humps or the like to be needed in some places.

[Scott5114]

They could easily start building tons of density in the middle of Norman. The downtown is there, just not much in the way of apartment towers. Build that, you might get the demand for walking, cycling, and --yes -- traffic calming. But as it exists now, definitely no demand.

The major barrier to building density in Norman, or indeed the Oklahoma City metro as a whole, is–get ready for this one–the banks. Any time someone wants to build a multi-use facility of the kind you see in a city like Seattle, banks deny the loan because "that type of development has never been tried in Oklahoma".

So essentially, the only way Oklahoma will ever get dense development is if some wealthy person pays cash to build so much dense development that the banks have no justification for denying loans on that basis. And if you have the cash to do that, there are investment opportunities for you with a far better return on investment that come with the benefit of not having to do anything with Oklahoma.

It doesn't even need to be a multi-use facility (like a five over one with ground-level retail). It could even be just a four to six level apartment building. Certainly those exist in parts of Oklahoma? Something that encourages people to live closer together and walk and bike a bit more than they would if they lived way out in the middle of the burbs.

I think there's, like...one or two in downtown OKC?

The most common mode of apartment complex in Oklahoma are one- or two-story (sometimes three) wooden structures. Anything bigger than that and you start running into needing structural steel. Wood is cheaper. So that's what they build.

One thing that has started to grate on me about Oklahoma is the pervasive mindset that if something costs more than ten dollars to build it's not worth doing.

[bing101]

Definitely a waste of money if you happen to be Hollister, California.  Fortunately you can always blame the contractor and say the calming measures put in aren't what was intended.

Yes Traffic calming projects are good if it's in San Francisco, Sacramento, Davis and Berkeley.  I don't know how that would fit in small towns like Hollister though.

But that will vary where the city council and the county of San Benito wants them to be.

[Max Rockatansky]

Definitely a waste of money if you happen to be Hollister, California.  Fortunately you can always blame the contractor and say the calming measures put in aren't what was intended.

Yes Traffic calming projects are good if it's in San Francisco, Sacramento, Davis and Berkeley.  I don't know how that would fit in small towns like Hollister though.

But that will vary where the city council and the county of San Benito wants them to be.

I was just surprised that any community in San Benito County would want traffic calming anything.  That certainly doesn't jive with the semi-rural nature crowd Hollister draws.  San Juan Bautista did it better arguably with 3rd Street and made it a tourism/commerce street.

[cjw2001]

It is possible to do traffic calming without impeding traffic flow.  Carmel IN has recently upgraded the Rangeline Road corridor by adding roundabouts, raised pedestrian crossings, tree lined medians, and some protected bike lane additions without negatively impacting traffic.   

project overview video: http://carmellink.com/video/Range_Line_Flythrough_HBR.mp4

Here is a street view of a completed section: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9699594,-86.1269664,3a,75y,170.77h,91.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRChKlw2f3fGaIJMvU9afkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

and here is a street view of another section before conversion:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.972955,-86.1269981,3a,75y,12.43h,76.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7fipjYKpEafLsxUzvLEjow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[SectorZ]

I don't necessarily object to traffic calming projects per se if they're implemented in a way that allows you to drive through an area at the speed limit. What I resent is when they overdo it and install very sharp speed bumps (rather than speed humps) and other things that serve as obstacles to driving. Those are often pitched as "traffic calming," but what they really are is a "stay off our street" message. They do things like forcing you to slow to 10 or 15 mph in order to make the driving experience so unpleasant that you'll find another route. If the street is privately-owned and maintained (around here, that usually means HOA streets), then I have less of a problem with them making the street unwelcoming as a cut-through route, but if the street is public, then as much as I understand why residents may dislike thru traffic, I feel people have the right to use the street.

This has been my concern especially about speed bumps. When you see gouges in the road on the far side of the bump, that is physical damage to people's cars occurring, and not necessarily at high speed to cause it. Ones that also have no gap on the side (for cyclists and rainwater) are even more of a danger.

Whatever can be done to keep cars at a slower, consistent speed, is the best thing. Causing people to drop to a near stop, then accelerate from that for nothing, causes more noise, pollution, and fuel waste.

[triplemultiplex]

Speed bumps cause people to drive faster in between the speed bumps.  It's a psychological annoyance and people feel compelled to make up for the time they wasted slowing down for the obstacle.
My neighborhood is lousy with speed bump/humps and I see it all the time; slow to a crawl, then stomp on the gas all pissed off.  Shit, I do it myself sometimes.
It's punishing people for driving the posted speed limit, too, because most cars can't safely navigate them without slowing way way down to a crawl.

If I was rich, I'd rent a milling machine and grind some of those fuckers off.  Hire a few day laborers to wear orange vests while I do it; probably no one will question it until it's already done because we "look official".  It would be hilarious.

Not to mention the speed bump is an obstacle to snow plows and emergency vehicles.

If you want traffic to slow down, make the road narrower.  Giant shoulders are what compel people to speed through neighborhoods because it "feels" like you can go faster.  Far more effective and less intrusive that making the road purposefully shitty with uneven pavement.

[1995hoo]

I've heard of places where angry commuters have gotten "revenge" on residents of streets with speed humps by driving through blowing their horns in the middle of the night. Not sure what that really accomplishes.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Depends on what the project is and where it is located.

[jdbx]

If you want traffic to slow down, make the road narrower.  Giant shoulders are what compel people to speed through neighborhoods because it "feels" like you can go faster.  Far more effective and less intrusive that making the road purposefully shitty with uneven pavement.

This has certainly proven true in my neighborhood.  The streets were all laid out in the 1940's, and are exactly 25 feet from curb-to-curb.  I rarely see anybody go much faster than 25 MPH, it just feels unsafe passing between parked cars or trying approaching oncoming traffic any faster.

[pderocco]

Here is a street view of a completed section: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9699594,-86.1269664,3a,75y,170.77h,91.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRChKlw2f3fGaIJMvU9afkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

and here is a street view of another section before conversion:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.972955,-86.1269981,3a,75y,12.43h,76.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7fipjYKpEafLsxUzvLEjow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Sure looks like they reduced the vehicle capacity of that road. I doubt it was so deserted that that didn't matter.