1. What is your past involvement with the Traffic Calming Program? (check all that apply)
I live in a neighborhood that previously went through the Traffic Calming Program
2. Which of the following do you view as benefits of the Traffic Calming Program? (check all that apply)
Reduced speed
Increased safety
3. Please check any concerns that you have about the Traffic Calming Program
Solutions driven by community preference rather than data or engineering expertise
4. Do the proposed thresholds for community participation and support seem reasonable?
Undecided
5. Does the community engagement format and strategy seem effective?
Yes
6. Do you have additional comments or questions related to the proposed engagement process?
I like the point system that relies on multiple objective measures/qualifications in order to justify the need for traffic calming measures. I have been dismayed by my recent experience with a traffic calming effort in my neighborhood. The amount of emotion-based resistance from some residents has weighed too heavily. City employees have seemed reluctant to more forcefully and proactively cite the data-driven reasons for the devices they recommend after the initial meeting. As word spreads during the process, more and more neighbors turn up at subsequent meetings, never having heard the reasons why signs and other less intrusive devices are not recommended (they have proven to be temporary remedies). It would be helpful if at the beginning of each walk around session, city employees briefly describe the devices being recommended (including dimensions) and why things like signs and speed limit monitors are not effective solutions. I'd like to see more emphasis given to staff expertise and objective data and less reliance on majority buy-in from residents.
7. Do the proposed program objectives capture what you think is important?
Undecided
8. Have we missed anything in the proposed objectives that you think should be added?
As I mentioned in the previous process, I'm not convinced this entire program should be driven by residents. I'm fine with residents playing a large role in identifying problem areas to consider for traffic calming measures, but the choice of devices should be ultimately the decision of the city employees who are experts in this area, using objective data.
9. Do you have concerns about any of the proposed qualification criteria?
No
10. Have we missed any other factors that should be included in determining eligibility for the Traffic Calming Program?
No
11. Do you have concerns about anything included in the proposed toolbox of devices?
No
12. Have we missed any devices that should be added to the toolbox for traffic calming on local streets?
No
13. What questions or concerns do you have about how the Traffic Calming Program will function?
No response.
A2 Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in A2 Open City Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Translate
1. What is your past involvement with the Traffic Calming Program? (check all that apply)
2. Which of the following do you view as benefits of the Traffic Calming Program? (check all that apply)
3. Please check any concerns that you have about the Traffic Calming Program
4. Do the proposed thresholds for community participation and support seem reasonable?
5. Does the community engagement format and strategy seem effective?
6. Do you have additional comments or questions related to the proposed engagement process?
I like the point system that relies on multiple objective measures/qualifications in order to justify the need for traffic calming measures. I have been dismayed by my recent experience with a traffic calming effort in my neighborhood. The amount of emotion-based resistance from some residents has weighed too heavily. City employees have seemed reluctant to more forcefully and proactively cite the data-driven reasons for the devices they recommend after the initial meeting. As word spreads during the process, more and more neighbors turn up at subsequent meetings, never having heard the reasons why signs and other less intrusive devices are not recommended (they have proven to be temporary remedies). It would be helpful if at the beginning of each walk around session, city employees briefly describe the devices being recommended (including dimensions) and why things like signs and speed limit monitors are not effective solutions. I'd like to see more emphasis given to staff expertise and objective data and less reliance on majority buy-in from residents.
7. Do the proposed program objectives capture what you think is important?
8. Have we missed anything in the proposed objectives that you think should be added?
As I mentioned in the previous process, I'm not convinced this entire program should be driven by residents. I'm fine with residents playing a large role in identifying problem areas to consider for traffic calming measures, but the choice of devices should be ultimately the decision of the city employees who are experts in this area, using objective data.
9. Do you have concerns about any of the proposed qualification criteria?
No
10. Have we missed any other factors that should be included in determining eligibility for the Traffic Calming Program?
No
11. Do you have concerns about anything included in the proposed toolbox of devices?
No
12. Have we missed any devices that should be added to the toolbox for traffic calming on local streets?
No
13. What questions or concerns do you have about how the Traffic Calming Program will function?
No response.