Like many cities, Sunnyvale has a Traffic Calming Program which allows residents to request measures to slow down cars and reduce car volume in their neighborhood, with the aim of improving street safety and comfort. I tried to take advantage of this program for Torrington Drive in the Fairbrae neighborhood where I live. Being near Challenger School, Torrington gets voluminous school drop-off and pick-up traffic, with drivers often speeding to get their children to school on time. I typically have to pick up my senior dog to cross the street to avoid being run over by speeding cars. Following the Traffic Calming Program process, I gathered the required signatures of my neighbors and submitted them to the City. The City measured the traffic, but then I never heard back, and my effort resulted in no improvement. I later learned that my experience is typical of Sunnyvale residents requesting traffic calming.
Since its inception in 1997, Sunnyvale's Traffic Calming Program has succeeded in serving very few residents despite many requests for traffic calming. Of the 223 requests submitted and closed to date, only 6% resulted in traffic calming measures being implemented [1]. This low rate of service prompted Council to submit a study issue in 2022 to look at how to improve the Program's effectiveness. The study is culminating in a Council vote on December 3, 2024 to decide on improvements to the Program.
Physical deterrents can be quite effective at moderating car traffic. Examples of such deterrents are speed humps, traffic circles, curb extensions, median barriers, and traffic diverters. The Federal Highway Administration featured Sunnyvale's Canary Drive as a successful example of traffic calming.
Many residents frustrated with Traffic Calming Program
Like me, many residents have been frustrated with the Traffic Calming Program. David Kesting, a resident in the Washington Avenue neighborhood, witnessed collisions and dead pets from the excessive speeding on Washington Avenue. David submitted an application for traffic calming, but was told by the City that Washington Avenue doesn't qualify for the Program because it's a collector road, not a residential street [2].
In Danielle Reiter's first year living near the Remington Drive/Spinosa Drive intersection, she witnessed speeding cars causing 4 collisions: 2 collisions involved drivers making quick stops to avoid hitting pedestrians crossing Remington and 2 collisions involved cars crashing into other cars. This crossing is an important link to schools for many school children, making safety top priority. DPS did a sting operation at that intersection and confirmed that drivers do not stop (see this video). Danielle said, "If a full-grown man crossing with a high-visibility vest can't get vehicles to stop for him, kids don't stand a chance." Danielle submitted a request for traffic calming but, like David, was told that Remington doesn't qualify because it is a collector road [3].
Qualifying for traffic calming is difficult to achieve
The current Traffic Calming Program is a lengthy 7-step process and unlikely to result in any traffic calming. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of requests (94%) fail to get any intervention done. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is that only residential streets qualify, notably excluding collector roads; collectors make up 34% of requests. Another big hurdle is that applicants don't manage to gather signatures from 50% of the neighborhood; this hurdle excludes 41% of requests. Of note, neighbors who don't offer an opinion are counted as being against traffic calming, even though they likely just don't have an opinion. Of the applicants who manage to collect the required signatures, 2/3 don't meet the speed and car volume thresholds for traffic calming (13% of total requests).
Ways to improve the traffic calming program
From the analysis presented above, it is clear that improvements need to be made to the Traffic Calming Program so that more neighborhoods can qualify for traffic calming measures. Here are some suggestions for improvements to the program.
Existing Condition | Suggested Improvement | Reasoning | |
1 | Only residential streets are eligible for the program. Collector roads are ineligible. | Include collector roads. | Collectors make up 34% of requests. Collectors are residential in nature so they need traffic calming too. Many collectors are important routes to school. |
2 | Emergency response slow-down used as a reason to reject traffic calming measures. | Choose calming measures that do not or minimally slow down emergency vehicles. Examples of such measures: speed cushion, offset speed table, traffic circle with apron. Refer to the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Calming Measures for Emergency Vehicles. | Chief Ngo states that calming measures are compatible with emergency vehicles. |
3 | Program requires lengthy 2-stage process. | Skip Stage 1 and go straight to Stage 2. | Stage 1 measures (mostly signage) have been shown to be ineffective at calming traffic, yet they take time to implement. Stage 2 infrastructure is effective at calming streets. |
4 | Requires 50% neighborhood consensus in favor of traffic calming. | Becomes irrelevant after Stage 1 is deleted. | 41% of applicants stop at the signature collection step, presumably because collecting 60% of neighbors' signatures is too daunting. Many neighbors don't respond because they likely don't have an opinion. |
5 | Requires 100% consensus of residents within 100' of calming device. | Replace with simple majority of respondents in entire neighborhood. | Requiring 100% consensus grants 1 person veto power over the entire neighborhood. |
6 | Requires at least 1000 vehicles per day. | Add an alternative threshold based on vehicle volume per half hour. | School traffic is acutely high during the half hour before and after school. By averaging over a full day, the program misses the problem of school traffic. |
7 | Assumes speed limit of 25 mph when setting speeding threshold. | Make speeding threshold a function of speed limit. | Accommodates streets with speed limits other than 25 mph. |
8 | Calming measure must not divert traffic to other streets. | Consider removing this requirement. Or, if installation diverts traffic to other streets, then calm those streets as well. Direct cut-through traffic to arterials. | A natural outcome of traffic calming is traffic diversion to neighboring streets, so accommodate that instead of rejecting requests based on that. Palo Alto has many good examples of traffic diversion away from residential neighborhoods. |
9 | Does not include lowering speed limit as a calming measure. | Include lowering speed limit as a calming measure. Take advantage of AB 43 and AB 1938 to lower speed limits. | Lowering speed limit is low cost and effective at improving safety. A 5 mph decrease in speed can translate to 20% reduction in risk of death. A lower speed limit doesn't impact emergency vehicle response time. |
10 | Does not include planting trees as a calming measure. | Include planting trees as a calming measure. | Studies have shown trees reduce car speeds and stress. See Charlotte's Trees for example. |
11 | Cyclist safety is not considered when designing calming measures. | Consider cyclist safety in all calming measures. Examples: Speed humps should allow cyclists to bypass them. Curb bulbouts should provide plenty of warning on approach for drivers and cyclists to avoid last minute merging. Provide adequate lane width for cyclist and car to travel side-by-side. Refer to the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Calming Measures for Non-Motorized Users. | It's important to make the streets safe for all vulnerable users of the road, like cyclists. Some of the calming measures may make the streets more hazardous for cyclists if not designed with cyclists in mind. |
12 | Prioritize requests on a first come first serve basis. | Prioritize requests based on safety. Consider crash history, vehicle speeds, and vehicle volumes. | |
13 | Criteria for qualification are opaque. | Improve transparency of process: specify geographic area for petition; indicate category of each road (residential, collector, etc.); publish results of traffic study; provide reason for denying a request. | The public expressed dissatisfaction at not knowing status of request and why their request was denied. |
Call to Action
The Traffic Calming Study is coming before City Council on Tuesday, December 3, 2024 for a final decision. Please speak at the meeting using the suggested improvements above. In addition, write to Council with your opinions by Dec 1.
City Council meeting
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024
Time: meeting begins at 7 pm; check the agenda for timing of agenda item once available.
Join in-person at City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave., or
Join by zoom.
Email Council (council@sunnyvale.ca.gov) by Dec 1.
Footnotes
[1] These statistics are calculated based on closed requests. There are 8 requests in progress that are excluded.
[2] A residential street is used primarily by residents in that neighborhood to get between their home and destinations outside of their neighborhood. A collector road is one level higher in terms of traffic volume and speed and is used to connect residential streets with arterials. Examples of collectors are Hollenbeck, Washington, and Pastoria.
[3] Undeterred, Danielle mobilized other residents to submit requests to the City for traffic remediations to be done at Remington and Spinosa. Thanks to Danielle, the City recently completed a traffic study of the intersection and will install signage to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing. It's unlikely that signage is sufficient to cure the speeding problem, but it's a start. Although Danielle was able to get some traffic calming measures for the intersection, the Traffic Calming Program did not play a role in this endeavor.
About the Author
Steve Meier is a 37-year resident of Sunnyvale. He enjoys cycling and walking his dog.