Raleigh Neighborhood Traffic Management Survey

Raleigh Public Works staff is looking for your input regarding the city's traffic calming program.  Thank you for taking the time to participate. The survey will extend through Thursday, September 24th.  

If you'd like more information on this program, please visit the neighborhood traffic management program website.



General Project Questions

One aspect of the NTMP is traffic calming.  The following questions deal with familiarity and overall effectiveness of the program:

City of Raleigh Poll:
Are you familiar with the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program?
Yes
75%
No
26%
Poll Closed | 139 Votes
City of Raleigh Poll:
Have you participated in a prior NTMP traffic calming project?
Yes (feel free to comment with projects you've participated in)
39%
No
61%
Poll Closed | 146 Votes
johnhinncLet me just say regarding the accident last weekend on Currituck, there are no traffic calming measures that would have prevented that accident and in fact, traffic calming quite possibly may have made the outcome worse.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
zaytounsr@aol.comTraffic calming speed bumps and stop signs are causing more hazards to safety than they are calming, as well as repeated damage to automobiles. They have installed on streets that have had either no prior problems or negligible incidents. Also, costing approximately $10,000 per speed bump, the city is spending money unnecessarily that could be used much more effectively on other needs such as feeding the poor and housing the underprivileged.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Stephanie AvettI find it is hard to participate for my street that I am concerned with, due to issues being in separate areas. For example, there are speeding problems on my street, which are especially bad around school arrival and dismissal times. So, in addition to traffic calming, I would like sidewalks to protect my 1st grader as he walks home from school; but they are in different programs. Also, though I am solidly within Raleigh City Limits now, my neighborhood originally was not, has no curb, thus somehow makes this the homeowners' expense to fix instead of the City.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
KklilligAs a resident of Laurel Hills subdivision, at an address that is impacted by the speedbump program, I am against the this plan and implementation. There is no credible evidence that there is a speeding problem on Laurel Hills Drive, per data from the Raleigh police department. Given this fact, the assumption that we need this program is specious. If the need for this program is an assurance of safety when there is no clear and present danger, a majority of yes votes from the residents Laurel Hills Drive is meaningless since their signatures were gathered under these false premises.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
psetliffWould like to mirrow Neil Riemann's comments. Cameron Park has a traffic problem which continues to worsen due to traffic redirection. However, our neighborhood cannot qualify for much needed calming based on the city's formula.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Dump the BumpsThe city needs to try some of the softer measures like Education programs, police monitoring, bumper stickers, signage, etc. before jumping straight to speed bumps as the answer to every question.

The entire area impacted should also be engaged - from the START of the process, not after the petition of only those on the street is completed. The secret meetings make for very hard feelings in the community and create an Us VS Them environment.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
SignUp#121214The execution of traffic calming in North Hills has shown a lack of coordination between different phases of the plan. First, speed humps were added all along Northbrook, including one right after the Pamlico intersection. Then the city installed a four way stop at the same intersection. The city did recently remove the extraneous speed hump, but the whole episode highlights the poor planning.

I had an older car when the speed humps were introduced, and a few months later my suspension went. I can't help but think there's some correlation. Also, cars tend to accelerate between the speed humps.

Instead of focusing on speed humps scattered all along a road, why isn't there a greater focus on roundabouts? They slow traffic but there isn't an impact on the citizens' cars like with the speed humps.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
CinMoThere has to be some type of speed control whether it is speed bumps, speed tables, law enforcement or cameras. The motorists cutting through the neighborhoods are the same motorists that wait until the last minute on the beltline to move over to the exits. They don't care about neighborhoods, only how fast they can get to their destination.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
johnjo999The speed bumps are awful. I protest by maintain the posted speed limit and generally ignore them. I only wish I had a pickup truck.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
BrassyStudies show that large trees inhibit speed by making streets appear smaller. Perhaps a larger right of way for larger maturing species of trees?
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
BrassyNot loving all the speed humps/bumps in neighborhoods. Appreciate the need to slow traffic, but wear and tear on my suspension isn't working for me.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
EODROGERSI participated in a meeting in January 2014 that involved Fairview Road, Unfortunately, there was not enough support to go forward with any treatment at that time, however, my particular meeting was well run and the options were clearly presented. If anything, I left stunned at the combative, disrespectful nature of many of the residents who chose to speak in opposition to any treatment plan. They expressed anger toward the NTMP Coordinator, the City, and their neighbors that I, and others, felt was very misplaced. Yes, perhaps there are cases where a single citizen initiates the process, but what the City subsequently found warranted a top ranking on the Traffic Calming Project List. It’s unfair to place blame on the City for heeding the warning, or addressing the concern of a citizen.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
sabre74knWould like to see more effort to slow traffic on streets in my neighborhood (5 Points) and other downtown neighborhoods.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
drivesafeNTMP policy has a myriad of issues - far too many to list in this comment field. Here are a few we have experienced in Laurel Hills. 1). The petition process is subject to unchecked misrepresentations and other "bad acts" by petition organizers. This is done to induce signatures to meet the approval threshold. In Laurel Hills, we have a fake signature on the petition (as attested by the property owner), signatures which do not match the owner's notarized signature from their deed of trust, individuals signing on behalf of corporate entities that own the property, one property bordering the street which was not included on the petition, emails or statements that petitioners mislead signers that this would result in sidewalks and/or that the traffic calming project could be killed by citizen vote at a later time. Even though this was brought to the City's attention in October 2014, there remains no mechanism to review or scrub these issues. 2). When signing a petition, there is no drawing, depiction or description of what the project will actually look like, but that doesn't keep the City from considering your signature on the petition as a "blanket approval" for whatever project results. 3. Property owners who are landlocked by the street which is subject to a traffic calming project but don't actually live on the project street, are excluded until the design stage. As a result, they can experience reduced emergency response without their meaningful input. 4. Pre-petition meetings between staff and residents were by invitation only, and not publicly announced. Compare this to a zoning hearing which is identified by public signs at the property and a public hearing. 5) If one person residing in a house signs the petition, it doesn't matter that other property owner's in that same house oppose it - the current NTMP policy deems that house to have approved the petition. Note - this allows a renter or an 18 year old child who signs the petition to override the desires of the actual property owners that oppose the petition. Furthermore, staff will frequently not address tough questions, rather they will state that they are only implementing the City Council approved policy. Staff writes and submits the policy which has in the past been rubber stamped by the Council as consent agenda items not subject to citizen comment. Staff always discounts your opinion if you don't live on the project street. Hence the next question.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
jhouse52Adding 14 speed bumps on a 1.3-mile neighborhood street is excessive! It would be excessive even if Laurel Hills Road was a major street! Many elderly people live in Laurel Hills, and it's not uncommon to have emergency vehicles in the neighborhood. These speed bumps will make it difficult for these vehicles to get to the people needing help as quickly as possible - at a time when seconds can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. The real safety issue is one that isn't even being addressed - the need for a sidewalk along Laurel Hills to accommodate pedestrians. Take the money you seem determined to spend on speed bumps and use it to install a sidewalk for pedestrians instead! The safety issue with the road isn't speed; it's the many blind curves and lack of clear shoulders or sidewalks where pedestrians can walk without being in the roadway - especially since much of the roadside is overgrown with weeds and brush. People are unwilling to walk through the brush where they can't see what's there, especially during spring and summer when the area has an abundance of copperheads!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
RileyThe Laurel Hills Road project has been dragging on for well over a year. The city proposes 14 speed bumps in 1.3 miles and this is not even a cut-through road. Many who signed the original petition for a "study" were shocked at the design and signed a second petition asking that their names be removed. "Too Late" was the answer and now we risk having this mess shoved down our throats.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
TipIuliucciOverwhelmingly, Laurel Hills residents oppose traffic calming projects. This is documented. It's an impediment to emergency vehicle traffic for starters. The effort that seemed to have started this petition process that started the effort is alleged to have forged data. I don't feel Laurel Hills residents are getting proper due process in this matter.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Doug AlexanderWith petition and polling responses among affected individuals being so heavily against speed bumps/humps on Laurel Hills Road it will be a travesty if they end up being installed anyway. Similar "traffic calming" could be achieved by just letting the pavement deteriorate and developing a few potholes here and there.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
John DewPlease tell me why the cul-de-sac residents in Tealbriar PUD were included in the Rainwater South approval process if the 'current policy' per your survey states that 'only residents on the project street' are included. The Rainwater North project, done at the same time as the Rainwater South project, did not include the many residents of the cul-de-sacs along Rainwater North. This strongly suggest to me that the NTMP staff is picking and choosing which process to use.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
William CromerThe city was interested in traffic calming where it wasn't warranted.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Judith L CrowellWoodburn Road is a connector between Hillsborough and Cameron Village. Woodburn Road is a residential street that is part of Cameron Park neighborhood.
Oberlin Road is a connector between Hillsborough Street and Cameron Village. One can bypass a right turn from Hillsborough to Woodburn and take the circle to Oberlin to access Cameron Village. Additional calming on Woodburn may encourage Hillsborough Street to CV drivers to use the circle and Oberlin....which does not intersect Cameron Park neighborhood. I choose to bypass Woodburn and to use Oberlin in order to protect my neighbors. Let's add on to Woodburn calming and encourage other drivers to do the same. ...or let's open up Oberlin and Hillsborough and move Player's Retreat indoors. Yes, I frequent Players' Retreat.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
sblackwellA disaster on Morning Dove. Total waste of money
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
deboraljI have a few comments related to the process as I experienced it on the Laurel Hills Road Project.

WHO SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION: Many residents are located on streets that must access Laurel Hills Road to go to or from their homes (such as connecting cul-du-sacs and other land-locked streets) - we have no alternate route. We are therefore directly impacted by decisions to place speed bumps on Laurel Hills Road yet we were not included in the petition process. On the flip side, residents of a gated community were given a vote in the process where their property backs onto the road but has no access to the road and a 6 ft wall separating them from the road. These properties have multiple alternate exit points from their neighborhood other than the road to be speed-bumped.

THE ROLE OF THE SIGNATURE COLLECTORS: There is currently a high opportunity for fraud in the petition gathering process. The petition should be sworn and include provisions, subject to penalty of perjury, that all signatures contained on the petition are valid and to the best of the submitter’s knowledge in compliance with the NTMP.

WHO IN THE HOUSEHOLD GETS TO SIGN: Currently just one signature from anyone living at the property is a valid "vote". We had situations where the husband and wife were not in agreement yet one signature counted as approval for the property. Only the signatures of ALL property owners (or their designee under a valid power of attorney) should be obtained. Renters and adult child of the property owners should also not be included.

Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
John DewI was the leading opponent of the Rainwater Road project. I attended both planning meetings, secured a copy of the City's proposed plan, had the plan enlarged so it was clearly readable, and presented it to as many of my neighbors as I could during the 100 degree dog days of the Summer. Several other opponents and myself created and circulated an 'against' petition. Our 'against' petition, created at the suggestion of our former councilman, eventually contained a majority plus 8 signatures ... and this petition was presented to the council well prior to their vote. The entire council knew that a clear majority of the involved residents did not want any traffic calming devices installed on Rainwater Road. We felt comfortable about our petition because the mayor had said publicly that traffic calming would not be 'crammed down our throats. We felt comfortable because our former councilman had recommended our against petition and had told us the number of signatures he would like to see ... and he even had our petition 'checked' by the NTMP staff. We felt comfortable because the chief NTMP staffer told us at both planning meetings that 'if the neighbors did not want traffic calming that the City would recognize that and move on to a project that the citizens really wanted. We felt comfortable because we had kept the entire council and mayor updated on our opposition to the project. When the vote came at the council our former councilman sat on his hands, the mayor said that the street was going to be 'calmed' because it had made it to the council for a decision, and the chief NTMP staffer, when told to 'put four way stop signs on every corner' came back with the comment that they were 'unwarranted' per the NTMP guidelines. So, we were basically told to lay back and enjoy what was coming to our beautiful street.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
johnhinncAnyone who attempts to drive down Shelly road will quickly realize how badly the city has failed. There are no less than 7 speed humps on this road which is wider than the maximum for which speed humps were intended. And here is the best part of this failure, when the Green school on Six Forks is complete, the city intends to prohibit a left turn onto Six Forks which will send everyone down to the first right turn off of Six Forks. Shelly road. I can hear the screams now.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Jean DasnoitI haven't noticed any slower traffic since the installation of the medians on Boundary, nor the curb extensions. Drivers still speed up Monroe Drive to get to State St. and visa versa. Would have been nice if the City had budgeted to have Glascock completely repaved in lieu of just patching after all work was done. The grooves left in the road surface on Boundary from the line removal are very dangerous to motorcyclists. All in all, terrible job on the City's part and TA Loving.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
ChrisPeople were clearly confused about the initial petition they signed as evidenced by the first meeting where it was revealed that numerous speed bumps would be forcibly installed although an overwhelming majority of neighborhood folks opposed them. It would have been simpler (and free) if a neighborhood meeting would have been called to discuss neighborhood speed and safety concerns before getting the government involved. Then we could have focused on a better solution like sidewalks and police checks. Neighbors should be allowed a forum to discuss the issue before petitions are distributed!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Katherine DewTraffic Calming, what a joke!!!! Traffic calming for our street ended with a string of unwarranted stop signs and ugly signage. The street required nothing more than an occasional police presence, but a few neighbors, some of whom did not live on our street, went around with a petition and did not explain what major traffic calming entailed. When the majority saw the final plan, it was obvious that was not what most citizens wanted. There had never been a single pedestrian injured. The appearance of a beautiful wide street was going to be ruined with traffic islands ( which residents would have to maintain), and ugly curb extensions, not to mention a proposed round-about and numerous signs. To save face, the idiot City Council voted to have the City Traffic Staff place stop signs everywhere.
These were against general traffic calming guidelines and are dangerous, because some cul-de-sac residents pull right out into the street or drivers on the street do not stop .
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cmeyrethis poll keeps locking up and I can't move past this question. Chrome.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cmeyreHAnover Street request
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
aliceskiAll the so-called traffic calming projects I've seen are on streets used by non-residents as a 'cut thru' from one major road to another. This road is NOT a 'cut thru.' It is used solely by residents, their guest, occasionally workmen and bikers to get to the only street it connects to and that is Edward Mill Road. If safety is the issue then it would be much better to put in a sidewalk or walking trail on the road rather than speed bumps.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
jffrygrvllwht@gmail.comNot sure what "participate in" means, but like many others here, I objected to the speed bump plan. I also agree that the primary improvement needed is a sidewalk. And herein lies the rub: The City will not install sidewalks unless there are curbs and gutters, and to install these, abutting property owners must pay a portion of the cost via a special assessment: $32/ft., ~ $224,000 for LH Rd with an average assessment of ~$2,800 per owner. Mention has been made of trying to share this among other neighborhood property owners...
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
JeremyI think this input field was intended for people to post comments on any prior traffic calming projects, but it seems it's the only place where people are providing their opinion on the matter, so mine:
Laurel Hills Road does NOT need speed bumps, they will not solve the problem and in fact I agree with others that say they think it will make it worse. Perhaps a more cost-effective and mutually agreeable solution would be to start with some digital read-out speed limit signs that have radars and display the driver's speed and blink if it is too fast. These seem pretty effective in other areas I've seen them. Additionally, police should make a regular appearance for traffic enforcement as they do on Glen Eden. Ultimately though, I think the best solution is for a sidewalk along the length of Laurel Hills Rd. I own property along the road and am willing to donate the ~10 feet or so it might take to host the sidewalk on my side (the outer side of the curb). We see lots of pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists, pet walkers going up and down the street especially on weekends and in the morning/evening, and the area where the dam is (that will be getting sidewalks) is the most dangerous part of the road since it dips downhill and drivers are often going their fastest at that point.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
BobfSidewalks would be best, but several well located signs and speed bumps could be helpful. The proposed 14 speed bumps is major overkill!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
klh.junkmail@gmail.comHate the speed bumps on E. Rowan. at least 1 is too tall for a street legal vehicle.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
annebailey@mindspring.comCalming means speed bumps. 14 speed bumps on Laurel Hills Road would force traffic down Old Post, Woodbine and Glen Eden. Emergency vehicles would be hindered.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Ben YannessaI am 100% against any speed bumps or humps in Laurel Hills. I would be all for sidewalks though so maybe the City can look into doing that. I have lived in neighborhoods with speed bumps/humps and it is a nightmare! All it does is ruin people's shocks and causes people to go even faster in between the humps. They are extremely ineffective and would hate to see our beautiful neighborhood ruined with those.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
lisa.colvinIt is dangerous to walk down Laurel Hills Road. We don't need the traffic calming, we need sidewalks. You have people jogging, riding their bikes, or walking during the dawn and twilight hours. If there were sidewalks, they could run, bike, walk there instead of the middle of the road.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
April NorrisAs part of the Laurel Hills Road project. I was also part of the group at the community center, which seemed to pit neighbor against neighbor. The reality is... it is dangerous to walk down Laurel Hills Road in the areas without sidewalks. I'm glad folks who have already commented do not feel concerned, I feel the opposite as we also, walk the road everyday. Some cars, those I assume who live in the neighborhood, try to slow down and give room to pedestrians. Others, however, pay no mind and speed by, sometimes on their cell phones and do not notice the dog walkers they almost run over. The obvious answer is just to install sidewalks down the road. However as we understand it, this is not possible because homeowners have to burden the cost. I'm not sure there will be an equitable answer. My family is moving to a different area of Raleigh shortly so my involvement has ended. Good luck to those walkers who are concerned about safety.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Ginny ShipleyWe were not aware of the Laurel Hills Rd Project until someone in our neighborhood informed us as to what had occurred. The entire process was shielded from the majority of our community until it was too late to object.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Bill DixIf the available evidence matters, then my opinion is that there is little rationale for "calming" on Laurel Hills Road. Walking along it nearly every day gives some basis for our opinion that it is no better or worse than any other city street with a 35MPH limit. On the short stretch where there is a sidewalk, vehicles present zero issues. That the City has pushed consideration of this "now you see it, now you don't" project for months over other surely more deserving streets is just bizarre.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
IndiaBauerI have concerns for the plans for Laurel Hills Road. There needs to be something done on this street, to help combat the extremely fast and reckless drivers, but I would like to be involved in the discussion as to what that is.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Wendi Caison LassiterDown rowan. Need to do something on quail hollow
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Al LoveYes I was part of the large group of upset people that were told the city was installing 14 speed bumps on a 1.3 mile road (Laurel Hills Road). I guess that qualifies as participating. No, I was not made aware of nor allowed to "participate" in the decision to allow the city carte blanche arbitrary decision making in our community . The entire process was shielded from the community until it was too late to object. What I find really appalling is that Raleigh Police Department didn't get to "participate" in that decision either even though the department should have been. The actual participation process leaves a lot to be desired.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Selby StokesRidiculous excuse for lack of speed enforcement.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Marc ScruggsAlleghany Drive, but that 55% is interesting. Project makes no sense. City says Country Club Hills has traffic issues. Plans more "traffic calming" measures. But wants to force "new" traffic through the neighborhood as the City, not developer Grubbs, pays to get patrons, employees, and fire trucks to a private development on Glenwood Avenue. Makes no sense!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Matthew BrownW. Lane St., Brookside Dr., Hillsborough St. I wish that the projects did not include sidewalk bumpouts that make it hard to ride a bicycle except in the traffic lane..
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
E Robert Wald501 Merrie Road. Traffic calming were petitioned by a couple who were too busy to teach their children not to play in the road. They moved out of their house shortly after the project was complete. Calming do little to control speeders and one more should have been added at the time.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Scholar HollaOld pool rd needs some reconstruction ASAP! if not there will major accidents in the future.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
KrinknWe live on West Aycock St which is sometimes used as an alternative route for Whitaker Mill so occassionally cars go a bit quick. I think 4 way stops and street parking can help slow down some drivers. But parking on the street definitely make our 'hood less bike friendly. Looking for ideas of how to make our area safer for bikes.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
stacy dosterI agree with Neil Riemann below. The impact I've seen of calming is to redirect traffic onto streets that previously didn't have a problem.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Gerald WichmannI spent many hours working on the Rainwater Road South traffic calming project.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Linda EdmistenLake Wheeler Road is a dangerous speedway and I've observed drivers running red-lights several times. Please consider additional traffic calming strategies that will complement the pedestrian/bike path recently installed on the west side of the road. Also, we have waited for landscaping in the median between I-40 and the south side of the Dix property for some 20 years. This roadway is an important gateway to downtown, and moreso now with the plans for our "central park" in the works.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Chris GrossmannNo, but I would like to. We've been on the "list" for many years...
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Neil RiemannThe city's calming formula ensures that our neighborhood (Cameron Park), despite bearing a tremendous share of the traffic redirected by frustration arising out of the city's road diet programs on Peace and Hillsborough, despite being very much a part of the walkable, pedestrian-oriented city we are always claiming to want, cannot qualify for calming. Instead, we face a fairly constant barrage of frustrated, ill-behaved drivers trying to use our neighborhood to avoid bottlenecks elsewhere, without much regard to the people who live here. So I have not "participated," but only because our efforts to obtain calming have thus far failed.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cath537How about some speed humps on Oxford drive by fallon park. People routinely drive week over the speed limit here and being that it's by a park, there are a lot of pedestrians sharing the road and kids playing in the park. It's truly a disaster waiting to happen.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cdgwynn@gmail.comCurrituck - I live on a feeder street to Currituck and yet did not find out about the pending changes until they were drawn on the street. It seems there was little consideration to the folks that use the street other than those who live on the street and about a block in on the feeder streets. There needs to be notice given to more people who are impacted.
It seemed many well thought out, cogent arguments were given by long time residents on the side of the project being overkill and yet the council seemed to ignore those arguments. The orig. plan seemed like a text-book traffic calming study with little consideration given to the actual use/time of use/volume/speed on the road. Too much credence given to residents on the actual street while ignoring that MANY others USE the street for its intended purpose.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
andy malinowskiThe meetings were useless. The city had their mine made up before they asked for neighbors input. They gave no good reasons for the project and got no benefit from it. It also made the streets less safe for motorcyclists.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
neal_bob@earthlink.netThe original Northbrook speed hump installation was done by disregarding the NTMP rules for traffic volume and petition eligibility. After reviewing the lack of any meaningful reduction in speeding the Midtown CAC passed a resolution calling for removal of all asphalt speed humps in the area, and conversion to concrete speed tables where a valid petition was obtained.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Kevin AndersonThe process was sound. The city presented clear, factual information explaining why traffic calming might be needed. They next clearly explained the options including doing nothing. If the residents could agree on a solution (via a democratic process) the city would design and implement it. The is a great example of good government service at work.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
smeehan@nc.rr.comPlan worked. Significant reduction in traffic and noise, significant increase in safety.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
dchilliardfor the most part the traffic plan for Raleigh planning was too expensive and made the street more dangerous., A resident's suggestion for stop signs solved he problem with far less cost and saved on street parking for many.. street should be streets and not obstacle courses. am narrow planted median for safety crossing and beauty is much better than restictive zigs and zags
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
johnhinncI am puzzled by the devotion of the city to this project. Nothing about it makes sense especially the fact that this can all be started by one phone call from a resident. The city has not followed their own rules in implementation and has basically ignored resident's input against the program.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Edward SinnemaListen to Neal H, he has become the expert on the whole process. Strong engineering background! Also common sense with the city planners are totally lacking!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Edward SinnemaAgree with Paul and Charles A total waste of money, the "problem" could be solved with simple speed tables ala EC Brooks and Pamlico! Cheaper and could already be completed!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Paul FrontieroIn the 50+ years of this street there have been ZERO pedestrian injuries.
Some council members say times have changed. They don't understand that this is about CURRENT and past history ... over the whole period.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Paul FrontieroThe need for calming was not supported by the city's own speed checks.
Calming the whole street is not needed.
A speed indicator light at one point on this street would solve the concern of residents and save $1/2 M
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Charles C Jonessee prior comments
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Charles C JonesThe traffic calming proposals/actionn DO NOT seem to be well thought out. The Northbrook Traffic Calming was terrible planning. (violated the rules for placing speed bumps; excuse, Brooks Elementary School requested traffic calming ..... not valid reasion to violate rules) Secondly, the placement of the speed bumps were "decided by street residents". Afterwards, 4-way stop was installed at Pamlico/Northbrook (based on ONE Request) because speed bump was too close to Pamlico/Northbrook intersection. Supposedly, this speed bump will be removed and two more added between Pamlico & Six Forks Rd. However, the 4-way stop will remain although the reason for it's installation will be removed ..... ????????????.
The Traffic Calming proposed for Currituck Drive was a disaster and DANGEROUS; after much neighborhood action, the plan for Currituck was modified.
The Speed Bumps vary all over the North Hills neighborhood with platform bumps mixed in with various asphalt specification bumps.
Please see minutes of City Council's Public meetings on this subject.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Tommmmmm2Rainwater Dr. fiasco......too many stop signs!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Tim ShearerI requested the Bennett st. survey, which eventually resulted in traffic calming measures.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
If yes, what was your relation to the project?
Resident/property owner on treated street
25%
Resident/property owner in neighborhood around treated street
39%
Affected user (driver, pedestrian, cyclist) of street from outside the neighborhood
8%
Concerned Citizen
13%
Not involved / other
28%
Poll Closed | 72 Votes
City of Raleigh Poll:
Do you feel the treatments are effective at reducing vehicle speeds?
Very Effective
6%
Effective
19%
Somewhat Effective
29%
Not Effective
47%
Poll Closed | 109 Votes
City of Raleigh Poll:
Which methods do you think would be effective in reducing vehicle speed?
City-wide education programs
13%
Neighborhood education programs
24%
Horizontal treatments: medians, bump outs, etc.
36%
Vertical treatments: speed humps or speed tables
29%
Intersection treatments: mini-roundabouts, traffic circles, etc.
31%
Other, see my comment:
35%
Poll Closed | 75 Votes
AskJonaReducing speed limits does not work without enforcement.
Speed bumps are too severe: speed tables work better with less risk of damage and less noise near them.
Stop signs have people speed up to make up the time.

Circles work great: they must slow to get through them, they don't risk vehicle damage or noise, and can be made to be a focal landscape interest, not an eyesore.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Sharon Gordon LordenThe survey site isn't working so well for me, but one more comment. The suggestion of sidewalks as the means to calm traffic certainly didn't work on Melbourne. Excessive speeds still seem to be the norm. That being said, sidewalks on higher traffic side streets and cut-thru streets are definitely needed for safety reasons, so keep adding them.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Sharon Gordon LordenAdditional stop signs on secondary roads that run long distances would make sense (Kaplan road, for example).
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
EBLight rail and more mass transit options to ease congestion on main arteries would be the most effect way to reduce higher speed traffic cutting through neighborhoods. Also, more effectively timed lights on major corridors, especially during commuting times in mornings and evenings might help discourage people from cutting through residential areas to save a few minutes. Placing more 4-way stops in neighborhood intersections would also help.
City planners could also more carefully consider where traffic will be diverted to when they do things like close the end of Oberlin. It's sad that a whole neighborhood has more traffic on residential streets and has become a common cut through because consideration was given to Player's Retreat having more outdoor seating, while the difficulty of having large trucks and buses travel through small traffic circles clearly wasn't considered at all. On a related subject, the make-over of Hillsborough street has certainly slowed traffic to a crawl there, but done nothing to keep students (and professors) from walking out in the middle of the road in traffic rather than using the many crosswalks. Has anyone considered barriers in the medians?
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Dump the BumpsJumping straight into installing speed bumps is not the right solution. Softer measures like education programs, police monitoring, bumper stickers, signage, etc. should always be the first measure. I do not understand why the city of Raleigh is so fixated on installing those miserable speed bumps and creating an obstacle course on our roadways.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
SignUp#121214The raised crosswalk in front of Brooks is necessary due to the crazy student pick-up situation, but there could be one at Rampart and Hyde. However, if this is done all of the speed humps around there should be removed. Northbrook would be better suited to roundabouts than the series of speed humps that has just been put in there.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
CinMoLaw enforcement issuing citations or cameras
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
djmurphy72I live on Mourning Dove road, a cut thru from Falls of Neuse and Strickland to Six Forks. Posted speed limit is 25 mph. Even with bumped out islands and medians, the average speed of a vehicle near my home, near Apple Orchard Way, which has none of these benefits must be close to 35-40 mph. With young kids round we need to extend the horizontal and vertical further East on the road.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
johnjo999Enforcement would be nice. I wouldn't be opposed to speed cameras if done properly.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
EODROGERSThe speed limit on our street was lowered from 35mph to 30mph, but aside from this measure, our street did not end up receiving any physical treatment and I have not seen any noticeable improvement. The people who ignored the 35mph limit continue to ignore the 30mph limit. I would be happy to see pretty much any treatment/solution at this point. The presence of speed humps or any other physical street treatment doesn’t thrill me, but I do believe physical treatments are the only things that get through to some drivers. I liken it to the crusade against texting while driving - you can put out all the brochures and commercials you want outlining the tragic consequences, but some people simply do not care and will always be reckless and aggressive. People don’t like to have to hit their brakes, but if you actually abide by the 20mph signs for speed humps, you will find that you never have to hit your brakes. I also know physical treatments can hurt property values, but nothing will hurt property values and destroy neighborhood desirability like having a child, or any person, hit and killed. Calming measures are a small price to pay in my opinion. More than anything I would love to see more police presence enforcing the speed limits around town in general, but especially on the streets that are, or have been, the highest ranking on the Traffic Calming Project List, and did not go on to receive any treatment. Many of the streets that are high ranking on the list are used as cut-throughs by drivers who do not live on the street and have no investment in the safety or future of the neighborhood affected. As examples, Fairview Road is a cut-through for many from Oberlin to Glenwood (and vice versa), and St. Mary’s Street is used as a cut-through from Glenwood to Wade (and vice versa). Many drivers refuse to adjust their speed accordingly when they leave a more major artery and continue onto what is a residential street full of pedestrians and lined with homes.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
sabre74knWhat's funny is that in 5 Points, we get told by RPD there is no speeding issue. Then I see cars going 50-55 down a 25 MPH street at night and I wonder what data these guys are looking at. Time to start adding speed bumps, red light cameras up on Glenwood and Fairview, and other methods because it's clear that whatever is there now is not working.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cfcolvinWe need sidewalks and wider roads. Many of us are willing to put money towards this instead.
Speed bumps would be an awful idea for our road, as well as other vertical treatments. "deboralj" said it perfectly.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
deboralj"Vertical Treatments" AKA speed bumps are a terrible alternative. They cause more harm than good. Here are my top 10 reasons to avoid speed bumps:
1) Speed humps reduce emergency vehicle response time. Response time is slowed by 3–5 seconds per hump for fire trucks and fire engines and up to 10 seconds for ambulances with patients on board.
(Source: The Institute of Transportation Engineers)
2) Speed bumps Increase wear and tear on residential and commercial vehicles: Speed humps are a source of excessive wear on tires, brakes, suspension systems, shock absorbers and rattle dashboards. [Source: The Natchez Democrat, Oct. 28, 2009]
3) Speed humps are expensive to install - I think my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere - like on sidewalks
4) Speed Bumps may cause physical discomfort, even pain, for disabled persons or persons with physical ailments. Being jolted or jostled by speed bumps and humps can be painful for persons with injuries or painful illnesses.
5) Speed bumps can increase noise levels for residents near by:
Residents living near speed humps must tolerate increased noise levels as vehicles traverse speed humps day and night. (City Of Phoenix Speed Hump Project)
6) Speed bumps reduce fuel efficiency and increase gas consumption:
By forcing drivers to brake and accelerate repeatedly, speed humps will cause a car that normally that gets 58.15 mpg travelling at a steady 30mph to deliver only 30.85 mpg. [Source: BBC.com, April 22, 2009]
7) Speed bumps Increase air pollution: On roads with speed humps, carbon monoxide emissions increase by 82 percent, carbon dioxide emissions double and nitrogen oxide increases by 37 percent. [Source: BBC.com, April 22, 2009]
8) Speed bumps could reduce property values. Prospective homebuyers reject home sites near speed humps. [Source: Tampa Bay Online, Sept. 30, 2009]
9) Speed bumps could make our beautiful road ugly.
There have been so many problems with cars not seeing the bumps and slamming over them that it is common practice to install bright yellow warning signs before each hump now.
10) Speed bumps will likely divert traffic to alternate residential streets - which will only cause a request for even more speed bumps

There are far better ways to make our streets safer - like installation of sidewalks and occasional police presence.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
drivesafeMust be a combination of education, open community discussions, enforcement, and proper engineering which considers the needs of all citizens in the impact area. Medians, bump outs and mini-roundabouts are much preferred to speed bumps/tables. Current policy skips coordination with law enforcement, community outreach/education and goes straight for an engineered solution with little flexibility if the project street only qualifies for vertical treatment.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
jhouse52Have a police presence in the neighborhood and start ticketing speeders. Adding a sidewalk along Laurel Hills Road will improve safety; speed bumps aren't going to help!!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Susannah Fleming HughesEnforce current traffic laws
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
RileyVolume of "cut through"traffic to road is subject to. Periodic speed traps.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
TipIuliucciEnorce laws. The existing speed limits are adequate
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Jared GarlockAs it has been stated below. Enforce existing laws.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
PaulEnforce existing laws. Do not make the innocent the victims of physical treatments.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
William CromerPolice radar enforcement of existing speed limit. There is no reason to lower speeds below the posted limit.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
dassasser@mindspring.comBetter use of stop signs at certain intersections; more traffic enforcement by local police; spped check signs; speed humps.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
sblackwellSelected traffic enforcement by local police
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
deboralj- Education programs
- Sidewalks
- Occasional Police patrol / Speed Checks
- Occasional Electronic Speed Check Signs
- 4-way stop signs in limited instances
BUT NOT SPEED HUMPS
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Helen FosterThis question will not accept my vote. WHY?
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
John DewAs a 23 year resident of my home on Rainwater and as an active member of our community HOA I gained quite a bit of experience watching the traffic grow (along with the city) and hearing the complaints of some of our HOA members. I watched the fire truck travel our street at 60 MPH (which I have no problems with), watched the EMS travel our street at 50 MPH (which I have no problems with), and I watched lots of the other 'speeders' travel our street at 35 MPH (which is the posted speed limit in our subdivision.) I watched as the city reduced the speed limit on our street to 30 MPH while leaving the speed limits in our subdivision at 35 MPH ... and watched as the city expected residents to slow from 35 MPH to 30 MPH so that they could resume to 35 MPH at Spring Forest. Based on some HOA complaints we requested that the police enforce the speed limit ... and they did but they kept telling us that we did not have a 'speeding' problem on Rainwater. Since the street has now been 'calmed' we still have a few 'speeders' and we now have approximately 3000 stop sign violators per day. Even the residents who wanted the 'calming' are not stopping at the four way stops. The opponents all wanted the Raleigh police to just occasionally patrol for egregious 'speeders' on a random basis. What we have now is Raleigh police just occasionally patrolling for stop sign violators. Yes, the City has created a real 'honey hole' for the police to make their quotas. Please remember, no 'calming' device is going to be able to enforce the traffic laws of NC and Raleigh ... only the police are going to be able to do that. We never had a real problem on Rainwater ... and most of us would rather have the police out doing real police work. And, if you touch someone's wallet, you are going to get their attention and you might be able to slow them down.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Katherine DewCity -wide education would be effective. Let residents know the terms traffic calming and street-scaping really mean 'Let us ruin your street by placing obstacles in the street to narrow the road to impede traffic.' If stop signs are used as an alternative, as was the case on our street, there is the noisy grind of morning and afternoon noon traffic and increased pollution.` The City has a obvious disregard for firemen. garbage collectors, mailmen and police who are slowed
and hindered daily by speed bumps and other traffic calming devices.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
amyleighSidewalks. As a property owner on an adjoining street, I would be happy to help pay for the overall program, so that the property owners on the affected street are not solely responsible for the gutter costs. It would be great if there could be a project total, instead of individual property owner costs, and we could work together as a neighborhood to raise the necessary funds.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
klh.junkmail@gmail.comstop signs and
"revenue enhancement zones" (police issuing tickets)
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
JeremySidewalks, speed limit signs with digital radar read-outs/warnings, and better police enforcement of speed limits.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Ginny ShipleyPolice enforcement and neighborhood education projects, not physical barriers!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
April NorrisCity funded sidewalks
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Bill DixSpeed enforcement where fact based surveys shows consistently excessive speed.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Al LoveNeighborhood education projects and police enforcement are clearly the best ways without impeding the road with physical barriers that adversely effect the response time of emergency vehicles.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Selby StokesPolice doing traffic enforcement.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Marc ScruggsNeighborhood plans -- not street plans!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
suzhailePolice giving speeding tickets, all of Wake County speeds on most streets,never seen anything like it. Also, any education you decide to do needs to be both in English and Spanish
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
E Robert WaldSadly the traffic calming seem to be the only thing that could help our street, but people still speed. It might have been helpful if another had been placed on the hill up Merrie from Merwin, as a lot of people fly up that section since there is no four-way stop (which also would be helpful) and people gun their engines to get up the hill.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Scholar HollaAll of the above needs to be implemented on old pool rd and every back street off of this rd..trust me..
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Scholar HollaOld pool rd needs reconstruction or face major accidents in the future. Kids walk down this rd along with bethel drive. It's very narrow and dark!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
jwrightmailhaving Raleigh police department issue tickets for offenders so that those law abiding citizens are not affected by the actions of a few.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Gerald WichmannLike it or not, speed humps or tables are the only truly effective way to slow down traffic. It isn't rocket science to drive a reasonable speed!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Gerald WichmannOur street was originally going to utilize horizontal treatments, but opposition placed us before the City Council to decide the matter. When the Council could not make a decision, Mayor McFarlane offered up stop signs as a possible solution to resolve the stand-off. They're better than nothing, but as predicted, there's lots of jack-rabbit take-offs and speeding....and that's when they stop! I realize RPD can't be everywhere, but more rigorous policing is needed.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Linda EdmistenAll of the above, plus vigorous policing to stop speeders and red-light runners.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Neil RiemannEducation would reach the wrong targets and be of limited effectiveness. Roundabouts and circles are useful but would not work in our neighborhood (Cameron Park).
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
alexkSorry, but the only thing that will slow the vast majority of speeders is physical impairments such as speed humps and medians. Education and signs are relatively ineffective, slowing down only the truly conscientious. And don't cry to the police either - they don't have the manpower to patrol every street.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cdgwynn@gmail.comThe radio buttons on this question aren't working. No bump outs or medians or traffic circles on a road the size of Currituck. how about the speed signs that tell you how fast you're going as a reminder.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
andy malinowskiIt was not needed in our neighborhood.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Meredithdelaencourage on the street parking to slow down traffic.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
smeehan@nc.rr.comHumps not tables.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago

NTMP Evaluation Process

The first step in the traffic calming process is to evaluate the street.  This evaluation uses five criteria to see if the problem is significant enough to place the street on the City’s project list and prioritize the streets with the worst problems.  The criteria:

  1. Speed
  2. Pedestrian Activity
  3. Crash History
  4. Traffic Volume
  5. Other factors, such as roadway geometry and sight distance

View the full PDF of policies (opens in a separate window).

City of Raleigh Poll:
Are you familiar with the process for evaluating a street for consideration for an NTMP project?
Yes
66%
No, not familiar with the process
34%
Poll Closed | 113 Votes
City of Raleigh Poll:
Which three criteria used in the program do you feel are the most important?
Speed
57%
Volume
40%
Crash History
42%
Pedestrian Generators / Destinations
50%
Roadway geometry
28%
Other consideration not in policy - see my comment
10%
Poll Closed | 72 Votes
Dump the BumpsThe opinions of all the residents in the impacted areas should be considered, not only the ones along the road to be speed bumped. The road is not their personal/private property, it is for the use of all in the neighborhood - especially those who have no other choice but to have to drive on that street to exit their homes. If the street is not a cut-though or short-cut then it should not be prioritized.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
CinMoLimiting access to cut through neighborhoods to direct non-neighborhood traffic back to the main roads
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
johnjo999More sidewalks would be nice
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
sabre74knCary doesn't seem to have this issue. Sidewalks everywhere. Cops that actually ticket speeders. Traffic lights and patterns that generally make sense. When the city of Raleigh gets into the 21st century and stops trying to act as if there's no issue and that 1950's traffic setups and patterns are the solution, then maybe they'll fix something.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Vidal TorresWe need freakin sidewalks not everyone owns a car
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Mary Annikki TriplettRaleigh is far from a walkable city, too many cars. Being a travler to Scandinavia, I have been in city's where pedestrians have clear walking areas, as well as for bikers and mass transit ie. Metro system, trollies and bus systems that are actually used instead of driving, all designed for convenience, safety and timeliness. These systems are preferred by citizens over driving a personal auto. People are spoiled here with their cars, driving everywhere they go. A modern public transit system that is specifically created to reduce the amount of traffic, with safety, reliability and timeliness would enhance this city while calming traffic greatly in a bigger picture. I suggest looking at cities that are noted for having the best walking and public transport and following suite.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Sam JaroucheSpeed bumps& more of the same.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Elaine BonnerFix those tore up roads down town. Tearing up people cars. Cars have to be lined up every 3 months. Tires are too high to keep buying.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Selby StokesThe lack of speed hump standards is horrible. Some you can transit at 25 others you will need dental work if you do.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Richard Surles JrOne way is to finally put in a subway system, it's long overdue in this size city and constantly growing, and all these multilevel living condos and college Apts and strip malls are just making traffic worst, but either a subway or monorail is going to be have to be considered.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
drivesafeImpact on emergency response, alternative routes/whether the road is a cut through.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
jhouse52Can't believe you would even consider putting speed bumps on Laurel Hills Road BEFORE putting them on Glen Eden, Ridge Road, North Hills Drive - and numerous other streets with MUCH more traffic!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
RileyAmount of cut-through traffic on the road in question - if the road services the neighborhood only and does not provide a short-cut for others then it should rank much lower. Consult RDP to determine if there is a problem with the road in question. History of speed-related accidents &/or citations.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
TipIuliucciPolling the residents affected. ALL residents, not just the ones who live on the street.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Willie WardI have lived in Laurel Hills for 38 years and have not experienced anything /accidents to warrant the traffic calming items proposed. Save this city(Our Tax Money) and stop spending any more money on such foolishness! It is not warranted. If money is to be spent anyway, build sidewalks.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
William CromerAccident history is paramount. This would be objective proof of a safety issue.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
sblackwellTaking a poll of the residents and asking them if they wish wish to have "traffic calming."
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
deboralj- crash history (speed related only)
- speeding tickets issued
- input from police
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Helen FosterThis question will also not accept my vote. WHY? However, I voted for "speed, volume, crash history."
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
John DewUnfortunately the currently used criteria were drafted by the NTMP staff and when one person complains they spring into action to justify to the complainer that 'calming' is absolutely necessary ... especially since it means that they get to keep their jobs. All of the currently used criteria are too subjective, especially when the NTMP staffer need to justify more projects. If the speed limit had been left at 35 MPH as it should have been then 98% of the traffic would have been within the limits ... the other 2% would have been the fire trucks and EMS vehicles. The volume seems high because Rainwater is a collector road ... and all the cul-de-sac residents constantly use Rainwater to get to Spring Forest. Our crash history only displayed 'fender benders' and no child or animal was every remotely injured. We have a park entrance, but only 10 or 12 people us it daily. Rainwater Road is 36' wide as it was planned since it was planned as a collector road. Criteria not taken into consideration was that Millbrook High track uses sidewalks for training every year and the City has never had a complaint from them. Millbrook drivers ed also uses Rainwater to teach new drivers. If there was a real problem, then they would have taken the new drivers elsewhere. The police reports of 'speeders' and 'volume' and 'safety' were never taken into consideration. Also, I ask why Rainwater North was not calmed since their numbers were higher than Rainwater South. The City, using it's current criteria and processes, will never inflict 'calming' on Rainwater North because that is where the expensive houses are ... and they will never sign a petition because they watched in horror as the City inflicted 'calming' on Rainwater South.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cmeyreHanover Street was evaluated and did not the meet the criteria. This is a one block long street that is used as a cut-through for cars and construction traffic. Cars park on both side of the street and there are tons of kids and elderly people. The city speed limit is 35 mph unless otherwise posted. What would be safe here is 15 mph. The "acceptance" criteria needs to be reevaluated; a one-size-fits-all approach is not working.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
amyleighRPD observations and data of only the road affected, not data from surrounding or connecting streets. Observations and concerns of the people affected by any proposed changes should be of highest importance.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Matthew BrownPlease, no more sidewalk bumpouts. They make it difficult for bicyclists who are not young and athletic enough to ride with traffic at 35 mph . . . or 45 mph.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Al LoveClearly, speed related traffic citations, speed related crash data, and RPD's recommendations should be the governing factors. Presently only crash data is utilized and the overall weight in the decision process is very small.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Vidal TorresPlace signs wher u can see them,
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Joanna Crell-AriasThey can start by fixing some of the damn roads that are so messed up , Then they could take out the one way streets they said a few years ago they were going to switch to 2-way. Jones, Lane Edenton New Bern ,Person and Blount. Eliminate the craziness on roads like Rock Quarry near New Bern and Edenton, the badly timed lights, the lane shifts and insane Cookout entrance exit. Capital Blvd is mega insane. Look at where people want to cross and where they are hit. Lighting with decent lights would make all the difference in the world at night. Better entrances to roads with BETTER SIGNS and MARKING (Exit to Glenwood off of Wade) This is my short list.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
George FarthingGood to see the city seeking input on an important issue. We should consider looking at the bigger picture for starters. The best means of traffic calming is to not turn neighborhood streets into cut through traffic routes.

An easy first recommendation is that city staff and elected officials follow Raleigh's policies that commit to balance growth and development (particularly commercial development). Permitting development that's out of scale with neighborhood/residential settings under the guise of "growth" isn't good planning and fails the city's policies, but also threatens citizens' safety and harms neighborhoods. And then leads to surveys of this nature. Let's simply honor the city's commitments, manage growth and make Raleigh the best it can be, not engulf neighborhoods and roadways with a sea of strip malls.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Becky BarnesSpeed bumps
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Lee Wilsonwhen you're burning alive in your house or trapped in a car or gasping for every last breath, and every single second counts, and the fire and EMS trucks have to slow down for all those speeds bumps and they can't get to you fast enough, .......
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Marc ScruggsEmpirical data collected by RPD. RPD must be sensitive to times of infractions ascribed by the neighborhood. Council needs to be sensitive to neighborhoods but also insure and review data collected by motorcycle enforcement. If data does not support neighbors concerns, then neighborhoods should participate in a cost sharing program if persisting.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Tim CochranMake giant sheets of sticky fly paper and put on the streets, LOL!! That'll slow em down for a while!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Mitchell SawyerSpeed bumps and those moblie speed indicators
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Paul ZimmerWell, people can always just follow the speed limit. hahah, lol - sorry about that. What was I thinking?
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Terry JohnsonPut cops with radar guns and write. Tickets aren't. There there's for
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Jim FreiSlow down? Why? I think people should drive as fast as they can; that'll keep them darn kids on the sidewalks.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Linda WheelerI hate them, but speed bumps work.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Charles Everestroad narrowing points, speed bumps, strategically placed speed cameras, police cars.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Scholar HollaOLD POOL RD NEEDS EVERY CRITERIA ABOVE!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Joshua BaileyThe logo looks like a middle finger haha. Love this stuff though!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Neil RiemannThe city's calming formula is unfortunate. Speed is an important consideration, but the current formula ensures that realistically, even if your speed limit is 25 mph, and even if your neighborhood is loaded with sidewalks, crossings, and pedestrians, you will never see calming unless your ambient traffic is faster than 35 mph. While I understand that other neighborhoods have needs, and I understand that the Council has for years underfunded this program in a way that leaves many priorities unaddressed, we also understand that the problems in our neighborhood are primarily the result of the city's imposition of road diets on Peace and Hillsborough coupled with its desire to densify. These are all fine things, but they are also things that net developers and the city lots of money. We are not nutty to suggest that some of that revenue be redirected to protect those of us who suffer downside of these policies. If the city wants support for these policies, it needs to find a way.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Chris ParninSimple to identify: many residential streets regularly experience 45-60 MPH drivers in 20-25 MPH neighborhood streets, which have no sidewalks. There are many roads with overallocation of capacity, such as Centennial Pwky, which would be a good candidate for calming, especially when Dorothy Dix is developed.

Problem: Speed is hard to control due to natural terrain constraints, such as hills.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
johnhinncThe problem is a perceived problem due to area growth and ineffective traffic control on main roads. The biggest problem is unsynchronized traffic lights on main roads. When people are not able to get to their destination in a reasonable amount of time, then shortcuts are sought. "The path of least resistance"
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Paul FrontieroThe City planner ignored the studies and stated his views, which were unsupported by the City's own studies. He wanted to implement his first ever such calming design.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Gena RichNeed more police presence!!!!!!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Tim ShearerLack of sidewalks.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago

Project Approval Process

A traffic calming project needs broad support from residents on the street to move forward.  This is done through a petition of support signed by at least 75% of properties on the project street.

City of Raleigh Poll:
Do you agree with the process for approving a project?
Yes
24%
No
51%
Not familiar with this process
25%
Poll Closed | 105 Votes
City of Raleigh Poll:
Which residents should be included in the project approval process?
Only residents on the project street (current policy)
15%
Street residents plus residents of cul-de-sacs off the project street
23%
Neighborhood residents defined on case-by-case basis
29%
Neighborhood residents defined on predetermined set of distances
33%
Poll Closed | 104 Votes

Design Process 

If a project has the support from the residents on the street, it moves to the design phase. Residents on the street and from the surrounding neighborhood are invited to work with staff in coming up with a preliminary design.

City of Raleigh Poll:
Do you agree with the process for designing a project?
Yes
36%
No
41%
Not familiar with the process
24%
Poll Closed | 106 Votes
City of Raleigh Poll:
Which residents should be included in the project influence area in the design process?
Only residents on the project street
10%
Street residents plus residents of cul-de-sacs off the project street
21%
Neighborhood residents determined on case-by-case basis (current policy)
30%
Neighborhood residents defined a predetermined set of distances
38%
Staff alone should develop the design
1%
Poll Closed | 104 Votes

Removal Process

Some communities allow for the removal of traffic calming devices if they are determined to be problematic or ineffective. 

City of Raleigh Poll:
Do you believe the policy should have a process to remove existing traffic calming devices?
Yes
94%
No
6%
Poll Closed | 109 Votes
City of Raleigh Poll:
If added to the policy, which level of community support is appropriate to remove existing traffic calming devices?
A simple majority of the residents in the influence area
47%
A larger majority/super-majority (75%) of the residents in the influence area (same percentage as project approval)
43%
Other, see my comment:
11%
Poll Closed | 108 Votes
Dump the BumpsThere needs to be a process to remove them as well as stop the project in process. Fraud or invalid petitions need to be thrown out and stopped PERIOD. Allowing a project to continue when those gathering signatures have misrepresented the process or forged signatures is a travesty and does not serve the people of Raleigh fairly. It should not have to take another petition with 75% approval to make this happen.

The entire influence area needs to be included in the petition process - not only those who live on the street. Those that can not leave the neighborhood by any other street should be included as should any property up to the next intersection (like what Asheville does in their process). I've seen where the approval threshold percentage changes based on where the property is. For example 100% of those on the street must approve and 60% of the influence area.

Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
CinMoThe approval percentage for installing speed control should be lower than 75%, just a majority. People who are using the neighborhood streets to cut through should not be allowed to participate in
the traffic calming projects. They don't live on the streets and don't have the concerns of the neighborhood. They would skew the results and the neighborhoods would never receive traffic calming. Also, the current action speed limit is 10 miles above the posted speed limit. It should be lowered.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
EODROGERSI do believe there should be a method for aborting current plans and/or removing existing traffic calming devices in the event something dramatic changes on the affected street, or fraudulence is discovered at any point in the process. However, I do believe priority should always be given to those who actually own property/live on the street in question, and I think hard numbers should be the driving force behind any installation or removal. If accurate speed surveys, accident reports, increasing car volume, etc. indicate a problem, there is a problem, and no one individual’s bias or perception changes that. I have a neighbor (one we like and are friends with) who would tell you that we have no problem on our street, but I can tell you that he speeds and he almost hit us in a pedestrian crosswalk this summer. I understand that many who live on adjacent streets or those who simply use the street on a regular basis have felt left out of the process. They have to understand that the people actually living on the street are the ones who deal with the traffic, speeding and noise 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We don’t have the luxury of just cruising through in our cars twice a day on the way to our homes or offices. I used to walk or drive by the house I currently live in on a regular basis, and I had no appreciation at that time for how noisy and busy the street actually was. Now that I live/sleep here, and I have to pull out of the driveway, walk my dog every night, etc., I have a whole new appreciation for the danger and frustration. I realize calming measures might be annoying to those passing through, and I realize that sometimes they just infuriate drivers and cause them to run stop signs, and speed on an adjacent street. That said, for those of us who live in busy areas, the traffic calming measures are really the only shot we have at keeping the neighborhood from feeling like a speedway unless RPD starts to have a constant presence on the streets in question. There is value in making sure that neighborhoods closer into town continue to feel like neighborhoods, and it’s sad that the increasing number of reckless, aggressive drivers are compromising everyone else’s safety and convenience.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
drivesafeSeveral of the questions above do not provide for complete answers, nor do they allow comments. A set distance should be used as well as defined characteristics which would require staff to expand that distance on a case by case basis.

There also needs to be a way to kill a project once the property owners in the impact area can see the actual design which would be approved.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
jhouse52Everyone in the neighborhood who has to travel the affected street should have a vote in whether to install or remove speed bumps. I don't live on Laurel Hills Road, but to get to my house on Boxwood, I have to travel Laurel Hills, as do most residents of the neighborhood.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Riley75%sounds way too high. That means if 26% either want them or will not sign any petition then the bumps stay. I would bet that 10-15% of the population will not sign any petition either for or against meaning only 10-15% would be in favor. That doesn't seem right.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
PaulThe traffic calming procedure for Laurel Hills Road was very misleading in how it was presented. Petitions were solicited for a "study" which got turned into a request to initiate an actual plan. I thought that the plan had been abandoned but apparently it has not gone away. Once again I would like to state that I am not in favour of the project and wish it would not be implemented.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
William CromerThere needs to be a way to abort a traffic calming project before it is completed. I know of neighbors who signed the initial petition who claim that they would never sign such a petition again.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
deboraljWe need a process for to stop the traffic calming project once begun but before the bumps have been installed. With the Laurel Hills Road project we found fraudulent signatures which put the "vote" below the passing threshold. Residents along the road who were given the opportunity to "vote" also changed their mind once they saw the proposed design. The people collecting signature gave them false information, telling them thier signature was merely to indicate they were in favor of a "study", not to indicate approval for 14 speed bumps in 1.3 miles! There was no way to stop the process once underway.

Ideally, the process should be modified so that a minimum of 75% of the people who are given a vote approve AFTER the final design has been determined. But as an alternative, if the approval rating of original signers of the petition falls to 50% or below approval prior to construction, the project should stop.

ALSO, If any original signatures supporting the project are determined to be invalid then they should be removed from the count. If the approval threshold drops below 75% then the project should be halted immediately and the street removed from the project list and placed on the ineligible list. This will help to ensure that fraudulent/misrepresented behavior is not rewarded.

In the new amendment proposal that has been drafted but not yet been adopted, City Staff is proposing that we must now obtain signatures of 75% of the voters to stop a project in process (before installation) This would thereby drop the approval of the project to a mere 25% of the properties abutting the street. This is before any resource has been deployed on designing or installing the speed bumps. Since when does 25% support indicate a majority and justify approval to proceed with a project not yet started?

It appears to me that staff’s efforts are concentrated on implementing a policy designed to thwart the will of the majority of residents while suppressing any petitions from being overturned or any projects from being removed.

Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
John DewRainwater South was basically forced down our throats by one or two people so why shouldn't just one or two people be able to reverse the wrongs created by those two people and the Council. Our former councilman told us to 'get him some names' by circulating an 'against' petition with 50% plus one so that he could 'take that information to the council.' We got more that the suggested number and sent the 'checked' information to the entire Council several months before the council vote. We kept the council and mayor up to date on our clear opposition yet the council and mayor voted to override the wishes of a clear majority of the residents. We all know that the City is never going to correct the mess they created on Rainwater or admit that the process was grossly flawed but we want all future potential petition signers to know that if you sign a 'for' traffic calming petition that it is a done deal as far as the City is concerned regardless of what they say and as long as the City has a NTMP staff that needs to stay busy then the majority of the residents are going to have 'calming' stuffed down our throats. Also, how is the NTMP staff going to handle the fact that the cul-de-sacs along Rainwater South were included in clear violation of the existing rules and what are they going to do if they include a new rule that only abutting property owners can 'request a removal?' We all need to remember that Rainwater Road is an efficient, effective collector road that is desperately needed by the fire department and EMS to get to emergencies (yes, even if they have to go 60 MPH.) Also, they are 4000 drivers a day that need to get to where they are going. Most importantly, all the FEDEX and UPS trucks need to get our resident's packages delivered ... and yes, that is where all the additional, speeding traffic is coming from each day. We never had a 'speeding' problem on Rainwater, but we sure have a 'drive through the four way stop sign' problem now. I just hope that the 'for' petition signers don't for a minute believe that Rainwater Road is now safer. Of course, it has always been safe and never needed any of the 'calming' inflicted on it. Please remember that the residents on the cul-de-sacs only requested that a stop sign with crosswalks be installed at Tealwood and Rainwater ... and that was shot down at the first planning meeting ... only later to be replaced by 4 four way stops at the other 4 intersections.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Katherine DewOne misguided person can start the process, so you tell me how many residents it would take to remove what the majority never wanted. I would really like to know how to get stop signs removed.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Al LoveA super majority of residents, namely 75%, will ensure that no speed bumps are ever removed. This country can't get 75% of the population to agree on anything. What if 74% want to have the speed bumps removed? Whereas 74% would the clear majority but doesn't meet the 75% threshold so 26% of the people on the street win and 74% of the residents fail. This is clearly wrong.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Nancy MoxleyThe problem is the "influence area". In our case, residents on Laurel Hills Rd were allowed to control decisions that affected many many more streets and had only the street receiving traffic calming for access. None of us were included in the process until the decision to install was made. Is that also the case when removal decisions are made?
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Scholar HollaNot sure. OLD POOL RD NEEDS FIXING.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
neal_bob@earthlink.netThe city employees in charge of traffic calming have proven to be too ignorant or incompetent to fairly implement the process. Many of us have repeatedly pointed out failures to follow the NTMP rules or put in asphalt speed humps that are usable at the posted 25mph. When asked at a Midtown CAC meeting, the traffic calming coordinator said that asphalt humps could meet a +/- one-eighth inch tolerance on published profile height dimensions! I have yet to find any that can meet a 1/2 inch tolerance.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Gerald WichmannThe city employs many fine folks to make our lives better, and that includes a process to regulate mindless speeders. I would rather trust the city to do their job, than rely on a bunch of people who have absolutely no traffic calming expertise!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
cdgwynn@gmail.comIt is fine to say a super majority if you are actually surveying more than the folks on the street and a block off the street.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
andy malinowskiIf there is an increase in accidents then they should be taken out. No questions asked. (but by then it will be to late for the ones who get hurt or killed.) - There should be a way for the injured to sue the city for putting them in.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
smeehan@nc.rr.comIt takes more than a majority to put them in. The same should be true for taking them out.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
dchilliardI agree with john below .. street users especially in the neighborhood are reverent in the decision process.. the city seems to always have an expensive solution and looks for a problem to use the same tear up the street and plant a garden approach
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
johnhinncI also believe that people who use the streets in question should have a say. These are city streets that belong to everyone not just the people who live on the streets. Everyone, including the city employees, should do a google search and read about the issues other cities have had with traffic calming projects.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
Charles C JonesPolice should enforce Traffic Speeds Limits rather than burdening the neighborhood because of cut-through speeders !!!!!
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
kaweardenSafety measures should not be subject to popular vote. If drivers are operating their vehicles within the law, and within safe limits for the situation, then traffic calming is not needed. If drivers are behaving irresponsibly, then traffic calming should be introduced, regardless of the opinions of a few vocal nay-sayers.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago
neal_bob@earthlink.netThe present determination of an influence area is capricious and unfair. It should be set by the relevant CAC or an independent commission.
Reply Flag 0 Agreeone year ago

Thanks for your input!

Your responses will be shared with the Public Works department during early October and presented to the Raleigh City Council late 2015.  Please check back at the NTMP home page for details, and click here to subscribe to Public Works email updates.