Blast from the Past? Report from “New LADOT” Looks at Benefits of Removing Speed Humps

From the, “what the heck?” file.

This public menace may be the last of its kind. It was installed in Atwater in late June of 2009. Photo:## Village Newbie##

On Tuesday afternoon, the City Council Transportation Committee posted a “special agenda” for yesterday’s meeting. Special agendas are added when an item is so important, that regular public notice is pushed aside so that this important report/ordinance/piece of legislation can be heard immediately.

So what was yesteday’s special item? An LADOT report examining the value of removing traffic calming devices commonly known as speed humps and banning their use in the city. Apparently, some in the city are worried that the humps are slowing down emergency response vehicle times endangering us all.

The report was requested by an unnamed member of the transportation committee  but city staff admitted surprise that the memorandum “included recommendations  and another commented that “it reads like a report they would have written six years ago…now don’t start hating LADOT again!”

Mercifully, the Committee delayed a vote so that outreach can be done to Neighborhood Councils and other stakeholders, including the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, Los Angeles Walks, and pretty much everyone that reads Streetsblog.

There’s several problems with the report that LADOT presented.

First, it talks about the “public health” issues created by speed humps without once mentioning the benefits of slower traffic for bicyclists, pedestrians, people playing in their front yards, people living in their houses, and pretty much everyone except the driver that wants to go faster. Also never mentioned is the time saved for emergency vehicles by the traffic reduction on local streets caused by drivers choosing faster, non-calmed, routes on other streets. That alone should be enough to disqualify the report as a serious examination of the program.

According to a recent study at Iowa State focused on speed humps, the benefits of correctly installed humps is slower traffic and safer streets.

Research has shown that speed humps, when designed and installed properly, reduce vehicle speeds to 15-20 mph when traversing speed humps and 25-30 mph in between properly spaced speed humps. When traversing a speed hump, the vehicle experiences a gentle rocking motion that increases with speed. This enables the speed humps to be self-enforced because the vehicle occupants will experience discomfort when passing over a hump at higher speeds and a jolting when passing over at excessive speeds.

So what danger do speed limits hold to those relying on emergency vehicles? The LADOT report does the math:

Comprehensive studies published by cities and transportation organizations around the world indicate that emergency service vehicles can be delayed by speed humps. Delays typically range from two to 10 seconds per speed hump. The time of delay varies depending on the vehicle type, weight, horsepower, wheel-base, onboard equipment, and driver discretion…

The survival rates from cardiac arrest and severe trauma diminish for every minute that passes without appropriate medical intervention. Similarly, safety threats and damage caused by fire can expand rapidly if emergency response is delayed. The proliferation of speed humps throughout the City may have already contributed to a cumulative slowing effect on emergency response time goals.

Second, the report has two options for the Council to continue with the speed humps already on the street, to ban the creation of future humps or to destroy current speed humps. The City discontinued its speed hump program in 2009 due to budget cut backs. So where is the option to reconstitute the speed hump program?

Council adopted the speed hump program in 1994. Over the next 15 years more than 3,700 speed humps were constructed at roughly 1,450 requested locations. The program was funded by annual budget appropriations that ranged from $330,000 to $1.1 million. In 2009, the program was discontinued as a result of permanent budget reductions in the city’s Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget. The lack of funding support led to the elimination of dedicated staff and related contractual services.

“Traffic calming measures like speed humps enhance the safety of roadways 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  In comparison, emergency responses into neighborhoods with speed humps are infrequent,” argues Kent Strumpell, a long time bike advocate and representative on the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee. “Policy makers need to carefully consider the significance of very occasional delays caused by speed humps compared to the constant safety benefits that traffic calming measures provide.”

However, if the city is going to go forward with the formal elimination of its humps program, or even if it finds the funds and courage to reconstitute it, Strumpell would like to see a more robust traffic calming program that includes.

1. Speed “cushions” as used in some areas of LA County.  These are speed humps with channels spaced widely so that large emergency vehicles’ wheels can span the raised portions.  In practice, they resemble cushions.  Lighter vehicles are still impacted by the raised area so must slow down, but large vehicles are unaffected.

2. Road diverters that reduce cut-throgh traffic but which have “filters” that allow emergency vehicles to pass through.  These may be deflectable bollards that emergency vehicles can roll over with no damage but which prevent the public from passing through.

3. Modern roundabouts.  If designed optimally, they can reduce speed without requiring the severe speed reduction of humps and may include a roll-over curb on the center island so that they are forgiving to large vehicles that are less maneuverable.  Obviously, these are more costly than speed humps.

But the first step is to make certain the city doesn’t reverse itself on traffic calming and declare war on the 3,700 humps already in place on L.A. streets. If you don’t have contact information for your Neighborhood Council or City Council Member, leave a comment below and we’ll make sure it gets to the right people.

  • This proposal cries out for a health impact assessment comparing lives saved from faster emergency response times from eliminating speed humps to lives saved and diseases avoided from a. crashes that injure drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and b. increased physical activity on streets with calmed traffic. I assume, without having studies this, that the latter benefits outweigh the former costs.

    If the city forces proposed bike lane to undergo a vehicular traffic analysis,  it’s the least they can do to require policies to speed up traffic to do some health/ safety analysis.

  • Lucas Smith

    There are places, including Seattle, that have installed humps that are less than the full width of the street, allowing wide wheelbase (e.g., fire and medic responders, buses) to pass over them, while cars are still encumbered.

  • Anonymous

    Speed bumps are rich people’s way of saying “enforcing the speed limit on my street is more important than enforcing the speed limit anywhere else”. 

  • ‘The report was requested by an unnamed member of the transportation committee  but city staff admitted surprise that the memorandum “included recommendations  and another commented that “it reads like a report they would have written six years ago…now don’t start hating LADOT again!”’
    Seems like there’s some missing text in this paragraph. First quote never closes.

    Also, did the unnamed city staff comment on condition of anonymity? It’s fine if they did, but I’d appreciate it if this post stated as much and explained the reason for it (e.g., “the staffers commented anonymously because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter”).

    I agree, this report falls woefully short in failing to consider the valid concerns Kent raises. And what’s with all the secrecy and rush? Did the committee member who made this a Special Agenda item seriously think they were going to sneak whatever action they take past the NCs, LACBC, BAC, LA Walks, etc.? Stuff like this report and the half-baked road bond proposal isn’t exactly building trust and goodwill between residents/activists and City Hall.

  • The agenda also had items about city funds for the streetcar — anyone know what if anything that resulted in?

  • davistrain

    There’s that term “calmed traffic” (a variation on “traffic calming”) again.  I understand it’s a translation from a German term that doesn’t quite translate into English.  I think it would be more accurate to call it “traffic restriction”, just as a valve “restricts” to flow of water or compressed air.  But “calming” has a more acceptable “feeling” to it than “restricting”. 
    There’s nothing wrong with restricting traffic in residential areas.  Part of my background is in railroading, and a typical railway line has speed restrictions wherever there’s a tight curve, the likelihood of conflicting activity, or other conditions were safety requires reduced speeds.  And railroad supervisors sometime use radar equipment to find whether the crews are adhering to prescribed speeds.  Going across the street to chat with your neighbor should not be a death-defying adventure.  Maybe I’m channeling Howard Cosell, and saying, “Tell it like it is.”

  • Citizen Patrol

    Dude, the class warfare schtick is so last year. Time for some new material.

  • Also, did the unnamed city staff comment on condition of anonymity? It’s fine if they did, but I’d appreciate it if this post stated as much and explained the reason for it (e.g., “the staffers commented anonymously because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter”).
    I think you can tell from the second quote that I was having an off-the-cuff (and off the record) conversation with someone I know personally. Afterward I asked if I could quote him because it was a somewhat amusing quote and he asked that if I do I not include his name. I didn’t ask why, but it was not someone in a spokesperson position so I assume it’s as you guessed.

    In a conversation after we posted, the same person implied that it was good to have this on the agenda Wednesday because LACBC, LAW, etc…were already there for the speed limit proposal (it passed.)

  • It passed.

  • John P

    I’m surprised no one actually mentioned the issues with riding over sped humps (those that take the whole street) versus speed cushions.  Personally, I’d be in favor of at least converting speed humps to speed cushions, just because I feel riding on a street with speed humps is more dangerous.

  • calwatch

    I can tell you straight up that a lot of times staff thinks that what the politicians do are stupid. But it’s rude to tell them that in public.

  • Ralph D

    I live where we have experimented, for want of a better description, with a variety of different speed bump or pillow types. I prefer as a cyclist ones that taper down to the side of the road. Bikes rarely exceed the limit and there is no reason to slow them down. Some are of a ‘table’ design and flat on the top. They don’t seem to slow cars too much but does increase awareness. The one that have the cuts to allow emergency vehicles through also let speeding motorcycles go through so they were replaced in on area. I read some reports around here, SF peninsula, that indicated that the bumps didn’t really slow response down to any extent. There were enough other problems that any reduction in response time was hard to tease out of the total run time. 

  • mike

    Usually traffic calming measures do not restrict access – unless you are talking about diverters. Speed humps do not restrict access. Creating street design that discourages speeding is not a restriction, in my opinion.

  • mike

    For some reason, some folks perceive speed humps and other traffic calming measures as something only rich people get. In the city I live, we hear that complaint even though most of the traffic calming measures are in the lower income parts of town.


Taxi Contract Controversy at Transportation Committee Wednesday

Photo, by Joe Linton, from the L.A. Taxi Workers Alliance protest at City Hall in August The agenda for this Wednesday’s Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee includes an important hearing on the future of Los Angeles’ taxi system. As is evident in cities throughout the world, taxis can play an important role in providing a healthy […]

Bike Sharing Coming to USC and City Passes Rough Timeline for Anti-Harassment Ordinance. Speed Limit Increases Delayed.

The City Council met today and discussed two cycling related issues.  The first was the ongoing discussion of whether or not the city should have a bike sharing program.  Second, the Council debated how to create an ordinance that would better protect cyclists from harassment. As predicted, Councilman Rosendahl moved to "re-open" the public record […]

City’s Bike Master Plan to Be Unveiled in January

(Editor’s Note: This is the fourth in a five part series examining the five bike-related items on this Friday’s City Council Transportation Committee Agenda.  The first piece looked at the city’s bike sharing program, the second discussed the Bike Rider’s Bill of Rights, and yesterday’s looked at bike licensing.  If you want to join a […]