By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

Last month it got a lot easier for neighbors plagued by motorists speeding down narrow residential streets to do something about it. Aldermen, city staff, citizens and the mayor’s office worked together to make it happen.

Problem

While speeding and cut-through traffic don’t get a lot of press coverage, they are near the top of local concerns for many ‘Villens, particularly parents. “During my first year as an alderman, I got the most constituent calls from people concerned about traffic,” Ward 5 Alderman Mark Niedergang told me.

Neighbors on Porter Street, Trull Street, Hudson Street, Albion Street, Pembroke Street, Boston Avenue, and Morrison Avenue all called to ask him for help in managing speeders who were endangering local residents, particularly the elderly and children.

Alderman Niedergang is not alone. Similar concerns are a frequent subject of constituent calls to most aldermen. Their usual response is to put in a Board Order for the city to calm traffic on the problem block.

As Chairman of the Board’s Traffic and Parking Committee, Ward 3 Alderman Bob McWatters noted the large volume of these requests and how rarely they were acted on. He decided to investigate.

“It was really a learning process for me,” he says. He discovered that the requirements for implementing traffic calming laid out in Somerville Traffic Regulations Article 14 were cumbersome and, for most neighbors, impossible to achieve.

They require 67% “of the residents per block of the impacted street(s)” to sign a petition, although they do not define “impacted streets.” Even finding 67% of residents is challenging. The petition form was supposed to be on the website, but was missing.

When the petition is available, filled out, and submitted, the city schedules a meeting. A city traffic engineer subsequently files a report, and the Traffic Commission votes to approve or disapprove the petition. If the calming solution involves physical measures like speed bumps or bump outs, the Board of Aldermen must vote as well.

Process

At a Board meeting late this past winter, Alderman McWatters told his colleagues what he had discovered. Aldermen Bill White, Maryann Heuston, and Mark Niedergang expressed frustration regarding their previous failed attempts to get action.

In response, the mayor’s office got involved, liaising with Traffic and Parking Director Suzanne Rinfret and Commission Chairman Stan Koty. Ms. Rinfret proposed retaining a consultant to review best traffic-calming practices across the region and the nation and to propose changes to Article 14. The mayor concurred, and the city retained Fort Hill Infrastructure Services.

Meanwhile, concerned citizens were observing and offering suggestions. One of them was Mark Chase, an independent traffic consultant who lives in Somerville, teaches at Tufts, and is spearheading Somerville Neighborways, an effort to ensure that low-traffic residential streets remain safe and accommodating to playing children, bicyclists, and passersby.

He went over Fort Hill’s proposed revisions “with a fine tooth comb” and concluded that, “it’s a huge step forward. The city is getting serious about doing traffic calming.” Mark Niedergang passed Mark Chase’s comments on to city staff, and they were well received.

Product

There are only three threshold requirements for implementation of calming measures in the revised Article 14. The proposed measures must be

• On a residential street;
• Petitioned by 9, or 33% of, residents living on the street, whichever is lower; and
• Consistent with federal, state and local laws.

Since in any fiscal year there is a finite amount of funding to support calming measures, the new Article 14 clearly lays out “warrants,” which are criteria used to rank proposed locations.

These measures are not intended for busy streets. Criteria limit them to streets with only one lane per direction and no more than 40 feet wide.

Nor are they intended to stop traffic. The revised article states that, “Regulatory measures such as STOP signs and traffic signals are not recommended for traffic calming….”

Nor are they set in stone. The new Article 14 is an “Interim Traffic Calming Ordinance.” The idea is to try it out for a few years, see how it works, and learn from experience.

But the process is a model of how good government works, and the product will empower neighbors and their elected representatives to make their streets safe and inviting places to be.