Why traffic-calming needs residents' support Why traffic-calming needs residents' support (April 28, 2004)

By Eric Doyle

The Palo Alto City Council's rejection of the Downtown North street barriers echoes the similar failure 10 years ago of a massive traffic-calming trial in Menlo Park's Willows neighborhood.

In each case, traffic controls that fundamentally changed the neighborhood were installed without first winning the support of the residents -- and were eventually removed. Wasted time, money and civic well-being were the results of these trials.

Last November Menlo Park's Council approved guidelines for developing a new neighborhood traffic management plan, which should minimize future conflicts. The core guideline is a requirement for support by a supermajority of affected residents before installing traffic control measures. To appreciate the need for this requirement, one must recall the Willows debacle.

In 1989 a small group of Willows residents began lobbying the city for traffic relief. In 1991 the city hired a consultant to analyze traffic and work with the residents. A focus group was formed. Volunteers, naturally, were residents obsessed about traffic -- who else would take the time?

Another consultant was hired to assist in "public education." The focus group morphed into a working group. The activists spent two years, with city support, developing a plan. A dozen traffic activists had become de-facto spokesmen for this neighborhood of 3,600 people. Based on the activists' input, the consultants reported "the neighborhood wants" this or that solution.

The plan was a maze of 40-some circles and diverters. In the last four months before the City Council approved the plan, the working group circulated a petition for a trial. The petitioners were door-to-door salesmen, true believers in their product, intending to benefit by its sale, not motivated to reveal negative features.

They had been lobbying the council for years, with little opposition. They had 750 signatures on a petition. The council reasonably concluded that the neighborhood supported the plan and approved a one-year trial.

The first wave of devices in the streets became a catalyst for opposition. People who were indifferent to traffic were dismayed by the solution -- diversion of traffic to their streets, delayed emergency response, the ugly devices. An opposing petition circulated, gaining 1,100 signatures.

Opposing arguments appeared in letters to the editor and speeches to the council. Opponents were angry at the city for giving control of their neighborhood to a special interest group. They learned to harangue the council and staff. After two and a half years of conflict, most devices were removed.

In 1995, Menlo Park approved a new process: the "Interim Protocol for the Willows Area." Among many flaws was one notable improvement: a requirement that traffic-calming trials be pre-approved by a majority of all affected households. The benefit of this standard -- used in Palo Alto (for "spot" projects only), San Jose and Belmont -- is to steer traffic-calming toward mainstream solutions. Had Palo Alto simply applied its existing process in Downtown North, major conflict would have been avoided.

Menlo Park's new guidelines build on this foundation, increasing the majority requirement to a supermajority (tentatively 60 percent, as in Belmont) and applying several other improvements. For more information, go to the city's Web site:(http://www.menlopark.org/departments/trn/ntmp_project.html).

E-mail a friend a link to this story.