Our Speed Hump Request Was Denied and It Would Have Qualified in Menlo Park
East Palo Alto's speed hump eligibility criteria does not allow for neighborhood connector streets. I make an argument that it should, to conform with Menlo Park's policy on the same streets.
Christopher Kao
In July 2024 I wrote this blog post after I had submitted an application for a speed hump on Pulgas Ave between Weeks St and Bay Rd. I wanted to write a blog post to update that the speed hump request was denied by city staff because it did not meet requirement 1: "Be classified as a local/residential street."
You can find the recording of the November 20, 2024 Public Works & Transportation Commission meeting here, where Engineering presented why the request does not meet the criteria. Engineering will come back in 2025 with data on speeds on these road segments in order to follow the Residential Streets Traffic Management, as discussed further in this post.
Reason for Denial
It turns out that according to the City's General Plan 2035, Pulgas Ave is classified as a "neighborhood collector" street, which is not a "local/residential street." Figure 6-8 attached below shows that almost all of the roads with buses that I thought were recently made eligible for speed humps (Section: Roads With Buses That Are Now Eligible) actually are still no longer eligible for speed humps. Hence the change that the Public Works & Transportation Commission that I am on recommended and that City Council had approved was effectively zero, besides a residential street portion on Notre Dame, Purdue Ave, and Illinois St in University Village (north part of the City).
Our Same Streets in Menlo Park Have Speed Humps
On the November 20, 2024 meeting, then-Chair, now Vice-Mayor Mark Dinan (who also co-runs the East Palo Alto Sun blog) mentioned inconsistencies where the same streets that run through East Palo Alto and Menlo Park qualify for speed humps in Menlo Park but don't qualify in East Palo Alto.
For instance, Woodland Ave in Menlo Park has speed humps (Street View) but in East Palo Alto it is a Neighborhood Connector which does not qualify (Figure 2).
As another example, Newbridge St in Menlo Park Belle Haven has speed humps but in East Palo Alto Newbridge St is a Neighborhood Boulevard which does not qualify for speed humps.
Given that our neighboring cities are placing speed humps on literally the same streets as ours (just on their side of the border), we should consider amending our speed hump criteria to include “Neighborhood Connectors" because Menlo Park allows speed humps on collector streets. From page 12 of Menlo Park’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, speed humps may be eligible if:"Requests for neighborhood traffic management must satisfy at least one of the minimum qualifying criteria as noted below….The street is primarily residential in nature, is classified as a local street and has an average daily vehicular traffic volume that exceeds 1500 vehicles per day (vpd), or, is primarily residential in nature, is classified as a collector street and has an average daily vehicular traffic volume that exceeds 3000 vehicles per day (vpd)."
Residential Streets Traffic Management
I also wanted to share that the City of East Palo Alto has a Residential Streets Traffic Management Policy, which outlines incremental actions to calm traffic on residential streets.
- First, the City will collect speed data.
- If the 85th percentile speed is greater than 32 mph, the first action is traffic speed enforcement and the placement of a radar speed trailer.
- If the P85 speeds continue to exceed the threshold, then traffic control devices are used (e.g. speed limit signs, pavement markers).
- If that still does not bring down P85 speeds, then physical devices such as speed humps are considered.
Conclusion
My recommendation is that Engineering consider modifying the language to include neighborhood collector streets to be eligible for speed humps. To do this, we will need a recommendation from the Public Works & Transportation Commission and an approval from City Council.
For most residential streets with existing speeding problems, earlier incremental actions in the Residential Streets Traffic Management plan will probably calm traffic effectively without needing to go to a speed hump. But some streets may ultimately need a speed hump and we should amend our requirements so that we are ready when that is the case, so that we do not need to go to City Council on a case-by-case basis for speed hump approval.
Lastly, I wanted to leave a note that many speed humps installed in the previous few years follow the Mobility Study adopted by City Council on July 7, 2020. Those did not need to follow the Residential Streets Traffic Management policy directly.
