Title
Review and Provide Input on the Draft Citywide Speed Hump Policy (Discussion)
Body
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Transportation Commission
From: Lisa Foster, Secretary to the Transportation Commission
Allen Tai, Planning, Building, and Transportation Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is seeking feedback from the Transportation Commission on a draft Speed Hump Policy (Policy). The draft Policy (Exhibit 1) sets forth guidance for where and how speed humps may be installed on City streets. The objectives of the policy are to improve safety and reduce vehicle speeds; enhance livability of residential neighborhoods; provide transparent process for speed hump installation; prioritize implementation to ensure equity and effectiveness; leverage existing programs for implementation; and maintain effective emergency response times for public safety. After community feedback has been incorporated, the policy will be finalized at the staff level by the City Engineer.
BACKGROUND
Each year, the City of Alameda receives numerous inquiries and requests to address speeding and add traffic calming on neighborhood streets. While the City of Alameda General Plan and Street Classifications (2022) call for the use of traffic calming measures in neighborhood and school areas (ME-7), there is no policy or framework in place to prioritize locations for implementation. In the absence of such a policy framework, the City has generally not advanced traffic calming on streets classified as Neighborhood Local Streets (Exhibit 2) except in special cases and as part of larger planning efforts like the Neighborhood Greenways.
One effective form of neighborhood traffic calming is a speed hump. A speed hump is a raised pavement structure that forces motorists to slow down to a safe speed. Currently, there are only a few speed humps in Alameda, though some streets have speed cushions, which have cutouts for emergency vehicles to pass through. Speed cushions can be slightly less effective in calming traffic speeds than speed humps, which span the entire width of the roadway. Speed tables or raised crosswalks are another form of traffic calming that raise a crosswalk to sidewalk level.
In 2024, the City began outreach, design, and implementation of Neighborhood Greenways. Neighborhood Greenways are local, traffic-calmed streets designed to give priority to people walking and biking, where bicyclists and motorists can safely share the road and busy street crossings have been made safer. During the outreach and design process for the first phase of Neighborhood Greenways, staff selected speed humps as the preferred design for raised traffic calming over speed cushions. The first Neighborhood Greenway speed humps will be installed on Pacific Avenue in the fall of 2025.
In early 2025, the City began developing a Speed Hump Policy that will allow staff to prioritize and implement speed humps on neighborhood streets throughout the City. The draft Policy addresses all Street Classifications, with primary focus on prioritization for Neighborhood Local streets. Speed humps, cushions, or tables for streets with Citywide Circulation classifications will generally be considered only on a case-by-case basis as part of larger corridor projects. While the Policy provides design guidance for the use of speed cushions and speed tables, the focus for Neighborhood Local implementation is on speed humps due to their effectiveness and for consistency across the City.
DISCUSSION
In 2025, City staff began working with Toole Design Group to research peer city speed hump and traffic calming policies, evaluate Alameda policies and project opportunities, and to develop a policy framework that will allow the City to prioritize and implement speed hump locations as opportunities arise. Because the City currently has no dedicated funding or traffic calming program, the draft policy is designed to leverage opportunities like the annual paving program for speed hump installation, as funding allows.
Peer Agency Review
Staff and the consultant team began the policy development process with a review of peer city speed hump policies. Historically, many cities have implemented speed humps or other traffic calming via community request and petition. However, the team does not recommend this approach due to concerns about equity and effectiveness. With this type of policy, typically a certain percentage of neighbors need to sign a petition for a speed hump before the jurisdiction evaluates its feasibility for installation. While community input is an important component, this approach favors neighborhoods where residents are well-organized and can be almost impossible to achieve in areas with larger proportions of multi-family housing. The citizen petition approach also does not include any systematic installation based on safety need or City plans and policies.
More recently, best practice in this area has led to newer policies that balance community requests with policy- and data-driven approaches to prioritization. The draft Speed Hump Policy builds off this approach, with a mechanism for community requests that is paired with policy-based prioritization.
Eligibility and Prioritization
The draft Policy defines three location types for eligibility and prioritization of streets with the classification Neighborhood Local Street:
• Type 1. Plan Priority: Automatic priorities because the streets are already identified in adopted plans
• Type 2. Eligible: Locations that qualify for speed humps but need to be prioritized using policy scoring criteria
• Type 3. Ineligible: Locations that do not qualify for speed humps
Type 1. Plan Priority locations include Neighborhood Greenways, school frontages, High Injury Corridors, and Fatal Crash Response Program locations (where relevant). These locations are automatically eligible and prioritized for implementation as opportunities and funding allows. These locations will not necessarily get selected for construction before high-scoring Type 2. Eligible locations, but they do not require further scoring to determine priority level.
Type 2. Eligible locations will be added to a list of candidate locations to be scored and prioritized based on four primary criteria: 1) proximity to destinations; 2) equity priority; 3) cut-through risk and 4) unimpeded length (distance between traffic controls). The prioritization criteria aim to identify where drivers are most likely to speed in locations where vulnerable users are most likely to be walking, biking, and rolling. As a next step, staff will set a scoring methodology using available data and may refine that methodology in future years, using the same policy prioritization criteria. Draft scoring definitions and thresholds are included in the presentation for feedback.
If needed to further refine and prioritize potential Type 2. Eligible locations, staff may also collect vehicle speed and volume data, consider collision history, and/or evaluate other roadway characteristics. While vehicle speed and volume data is a common and accurate way to assess speed hump need, the cost of collecting that data across many locations is a barrier to using it as a primary consideration. An assessment of cut-through risk and a measurement of unimpeded length between traffic controls are intended to serve as proxies for susceptibility for speeding. Data collection will be conducted when there is a lack of clarity on speeding behavior in a particular location or a need to refine prioritization between multiple locations.
Type 3. Ineligible locations have dead ends, very low unimpeded length, or serve as a primary neighborhood fire response route. Because Alameda is mostly flat and most Neighborhood Local streets have similar design characteristics (e.g. width, speed limit), speed humps are feasible in many locations. Rather than propose screening criteria based on topography or feasibility like in some cities, the policy includes relatively limited screening criteria based on speeding risk.
The draft Policy describes the process for screening and prioritization that will lead to a list of candidate locations for both Type 1. Plan Priority and Type 2. Eligible locations. For transparency, staff will publish a list of request locations once a year showing their type (eligibility) and, for Type 2. Eligible locations, their relative score (high, medium, low). These will not guarantee implementation but will give requesters a sense of their street’s relative priority for future opportunities.
Implementation
The City currently has no dedicated program or funding source for speed humps or neighborhood traffic calming. Therefore, speed humps will be installed as part of larger projects, such the annual paving program, as funding is available and opportunities allow. In some cases, Type 1. Plan Priority locations will have their own implementation process and funding source. For example, speed humps are currently under planning and design for the first phase of Neighborhood Greenways.
The draft Speed Hump Policy outlines a procedure for including speed humps in larger projects like the pavement program. The intent of the Policy is to begin routinely implementing speed humps, even if it’s only a small amount per year, as funding and staffing allow. This way, the City has a mechanism to respond to community requests while balancing those requests with approved plan and program priorities.
Next Steps
Based on feedback from the Transportation Commission, staff will revise the draft Speed Hump Policy, develop the design guidelines as a technical appendix, refine the prioritization scoring methodology, and finalize for administrative approval. Staff expect a final Policy by the end of 2025 and location list development starting in 2026.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Because there is no dedicated budget or program for speed humps specifically, implementation of the draft Policy would occur within existing CIP project budgets and balanced with other scope elements of those projects. The Street Safety CIP would likely be used for some of the implementation, which would reduce funding for other standalone street safety projects, like flashing beacons at crosswalks.
A dedicated program and budget for speed humps or traffic calming would require a budget action by City Council.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The 2022 General Plan Mobility Element policy ME-7 includes an action to “improve livability and safety for residents…in neighborhood and school areas with the use of traffic calming techniques…” The 2022 General Plan Street Classifications set a target maximum design speed of 20 mph for Neighborhood Local Streets, which speed humps can help achieve.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is not a project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378, as it can be shown with certainty that the adoption of a local Speed Hump Policy has no direct significant environmental impact. As a separate and independent basis, the installation of street humps on local streets is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) Existing Facilities (minor alterations to existing facilities).
CLIMATE IMPACT
Speed humps and other traffic calming devices have a negligible effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and provide input on the Draft Speed Hump Policy.
Respectfully submitted,
Susie Hufstader, Senior Transportation Coordinator
Exhibits:
1. Draft Speed Hump Policy
2. City of Alameda Street Classifications