City Council, March 14th - Easier Speed Humps

Perhaps spurred on by Councilor Stapleton's recent motions for "Twenty is Plenty" and intersection murals, on Monday Councilor Gonzalez proposes to make speed hump installations easier for neighbors who have noticed speeding problems on neighborhood streets.

It is just so great to see the gathering momentum - or momentum for slowing - for safer streets right now!

Installation on Evergreen Ave NE, October 2012

From the Staff Report:

The City’s current criteria for speed humps is:

1. The street must be a residential street,
2. There must be more than 600 vehicles per day, and
3. Over one half of the vehicles must be traveling over 25 mph.

The separate process would be in addition to, and not a replacement of the City’s current process. The alternative process would:

1. Be for local, residential streets only,
2. Not require a minimum number of vehicles per day,
3. Require only 25 percent of vehicles to be traveling over the posted speed limit,
4. Require the request come through the respective neighborhood association,
5. Require the City to consider equity in the request and timeline for completion, and
6. Require for recycled rubber speed humps to be available as an option. If that option is not yet available, city staff are directed to takes necessary steps to make it available.

It will be interesting to see how this proceeds. Public Works has been reluctant to approve and install them, and yet we continue to see so much speeding. Maybe we can make a paradigm shift finally where we see roads designed for the speed we want rather than norms for speeding leading to higher design speed and to forgiving design on roads. We currently have things backwards.

Perhaps speed humps on Albert Drive

A concession floated - but not I think formally accepted or required - by the Meyer Farm team responded to neighborhood concerns about speed on Albert Drive. Councilor Gonzalez' proposal might make this easier regardless of how Meyer Farm proceeds, and perhaps lay the groundwork to make it easier to require something like this as a condition of approval on developments in the future.

As for slowing more generally, step one is for those local streets, and step two will be for the collectors and arterials, on which we have most of the complaints about speeding, and which are the most deadly. (See recent notes on Mildred Lane and Fairway Avenue.)

One of two big items is in fact a slightly revised plan at the Meyer Farm, and a Staff Recommendation to

Reopen the record in the proceeding to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on the modified application in Phase Subdivision Tentative Plan Case No. SUB21-09 and conduct deliberations on the application on March 28, 2022.

There will be more to say in advance of the meeting on the 28th, but the revision is very minor, simply deleting a handful of lots, 14 of 139 total, laid over significant trees. They did not change the road plan or the overall lot configuration for single detached houses. There was an opportunity to rethink and really improve the proposal, and they chose the minimum.

The other big item is an information item on a CAHOOTS style mobile crisis response. It's hard to say whether this is a real advance, or whether this is simply procedural churn for the appearance of "doing something." Others will have more to say.

Policy Agenda: Three of four are routine?

About adoption of the 2022 Policy Agenda there isn't a lot to say as it is a formality. But in looking at the final report, three of the priority areas just look like normal city function, and not any special priority:

1. Planning for our future
2. Engaging our community
3. Sustaining infrastructure and services
   

How are those special priorities? "Implementing Climate Action" would be a priority area, but "planning for our future" is just regular, routine stuff. Similarly, "Responding to our Road Safety Problem" would be a priority area, but "sustaining infrastructure" is just normal repair and maintenance.

Only "responding to our sheltering crisis" looks like an actual priority. Though the details might illustrate priorities, at the outline level the document's structure does not look very helpful or clarifying at the moment.

Not seeing much "multi-modal" here

Bullets for the rest:

• A list of right-of-way needed for the project to enlarge Hilfiker and Commercial Street (a project planned independent of and prior to the Meyer Farm proposal, do note)
• An agreement with ODOT for right-of-way services there. The Staff Report bikewashes it a little, as it is mainly for turn lanes and enlargement: "This project will provide pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at the intersection of Hilfiker Lane SE and Commercial Street SE." By contrast, here's the project description from 2016, which focuses on cars: "The approaches on Hilfiker Ln. SE will be widened to allow left turn lane and bike lanes in both directions. The traffic signal will be replaced with a modern signal to enhance traffic operations in this congested commercial district."
  
• A separate list of right-of-way needed for the Second Street NW project. The Staff Report says "The urban renewal plan and the business district action plan identify additional multi-modal connectivity improvements to support current and future needs which are included with the 2nd Street NW Improvement Project." But as you can see from the cross-section above, there's not a whole lot of multi-modal there.
• A small dedication of right-of-way for a new street out at the Mill Creek warehouse district, "Logistics Street."
• A reduction of fees at the Library for meeting rooms and adjustment to some planning fees. (Also some new rules for the community rooms at the Library.)
  
• An interesting move to rebrand the Housing Authority and build out some new function with a restructuring. Others will have more to say on that.