Rundown of PLG speed humps forum

In case you weren't able to attend the meeting last Thursday, here is our somewhat subjective take:

* The reps from the DOT and 71st Pct. support speed humps in general and say they are an effective traffic calming device. The 71st Pct. rep suggested that on the long blocks TWO humps be placed to prevent drivers' instinct to speed up after a hump to try to make the light. No suggestion that patrolmen hate driving over the humps.

* The FDNY was unable to attend, but DOT said that speed humps on designated fire routes are a non-starter.

* The DOT rep said that the agency is "complaint driven" and will respond to requests for speed humps by doing an independent assessment of their appropriateness.  Under certain conditions—like the presence of a school, or a consistent speeding problem (though the DOT rep was a little fuzzy on this one)—the DOT will build without going through the community board. (The speed limit on residential streets without schools is 30 mph.) If the conditions for a quasi-mandatory speed hump are not met, the DOT will seek the approval of the community group, which asks for a petition signed by residents of the block.

* The general feeling appeared to be pro-traffic calming, but there were a couple of very VERY vocal opponents. From them we learned that cars don't kill people, people who don't get out of the way kill people.

* Much of the crowd was interested in hearing about other forms of traffic calming, but neither speaker was able to answer their questions. Though Transportation Alternatives was billed as one of the consultants, the organizer mistakenly forgot to notify TA that the canceled January 10 meeting had been rescheduled.

In the end, there were no conclusions or decisions made. Since most people left with questions, we're going to plan a followup meeting and have Transportation Alternatives discuss a variety of traffic calming methods that could work in our neighborhood. Stay tuned.

Comments

[Matthew Arnold]

Carrie,

I think you should be a little more fair with regards to those opposed.

There was one person that was completely anti-traffic calming. One.

Most of the people against were against speed-humps or speed-humps alone.

Secondly my interpretation of the meeting was a little different but only because I was disgusted how ill-prepared the speakers were.

IMHO the meeting that was held regarding speed humps was essentially useless. There was no scientific evidence shown or discussed.

The police captain that was there basically said, "it couldn't hurt", without info to back up his OPINION. He "agreed" that two humps should be installed based on people's in the audience suggestion. He also stated that he thought "enforcement was a bad idea"!!! I could not believe what I heard. He felt it "alienated" people and only affected one person at a time. So what!!! That person will now think twice about speeding in our neighborhood and the person driving by will notice the police presence and also think twice about speeding.

Transportation Alternatives was left out, whether intentionally or not. They would have been highly informative and brought to the table other ideas for traffic calming. I was told by TA that "We were never invited or notified that the meeting had been rescheduled after the Jan. 10th meeting was cancelled." I am very disappointed to say the least that they did not attend.

The DOT rep that attended really did not have any documented evidence of Speed Hump positives/negatives other than a 1 minute script that she read from at the beginning. Mostly her input was about the process by which someone goes through to have speed humps be implemented.

Pretty lame if you ask me.

Thanks for the blog. It is great for the community.

[Charles Star]

It was my recap, so I'll defend it.

I'd actually say that there were TWO people very opposed to traffic calming, but I don't think that we disagree much about the tone of the meeting.

I think you are overreacting a little to the NYPD rep. To say that he was "against" enforcement is a stretch. I heard his position as "enforcement is inevitably sporadic, expensive, makes people hate cops and is ultimately less effective than good engineering." As for whether that is merely his opinion, I think he was passing on the NYPD party line - speed humps work if spaced properly.

The DOT rep was more process than statistics, but the fact that DOT installs them can be taken to mean that the official DOT position is that they are effective under the circumstances defined by the review process.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words about the blog. See you at the next meeting!

[Matthew]

Really not overreacting. His role as a police officer is enforcement.

I spoke with the captain afterward and he was adamant is his opposing of enforcement. I actually confronted him on this and said that it alienated people. Yes he said that they do it but he did not like it.

My only thought on this is that if he has this opinion then it certainly will never be effective as he will never implement it in such a way to make a difference. That is what irks me so.

[Charles Star]

I disagree a little regarding his role, Matthew. It is within his role to encourage better traffic engineering so that manpower can be more usefully deployed. I'd rather have the police used for foot patrols and investigations, rather than speed traps.

I wasn't part of your post-meeting conversation; if you think he was just trying to shirk, that's not a good thing.

[Jeanne]

Criminals often speed when leaving a crime scene. In most cities the police know that, and that's the reason for they actually want to stop speeders. I'm having a hard time seeing how refusing to stop speeders or eratic dangerous drivers fits into a greater focus on investigations. It's actually a tool in investigations. Many many times a simple traffic stop leads to a drug bust or DUI bust, or the capture of a wanted criminal. People who speed fast through quiet streets in residential neighborhoods where they could easily hit and kill someone are not generally good, responsible people. There should be no problem with feeling badly about "alienating" them.