Some experts claim that speeding traffic is a social issue and behavioral problem that cannot be addressed through engineering or enforcement. These experts point out the paradox of human behavior in which a resident wants drivers to drive slowly on their street, however that same resident will speed in other residential areas. They believe that until this issue of human behavior is addressed, speeding problems will persist. Although this may be true to a certain degree, many local governments around the world have experienced some success with traditional traffic calming programs.
A. 
The Borough receives numerous requests, complaints and suggestions from residents about traffic-related issues. In 2008, the Borough Council inquired about the use of speed humps and other traffic calming measures to address excessive speeding vehicles and cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods. From these inquiries the Brentwood Police Department has initiated increased focus on speeding citations and other traffic-related citations in the hopes of curtailing some of the speeding throughout the Borough's residential neighborhoods. However, there is a high demand for enforcement all over the Borough and it is not very efficient to conduct enforcement on low-volume residential streets. Sometimes enforcement works only on a temporary basis and there is a need for more permanent measures to reduce the speed of vehicles and discourage cut-through traffic on low-volume residential streets.
B. 
The idea of utilizing traffic calming devices was raised again by the Borough Council in 2009 when concerns were raised by residents on Bauman Avenue that speeding has increased on Bauman Avenue. At the May 26, 2009, Council meeting, Council decided to direct staff to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy that could be applied to residential neighborhoods Borough-wide.
C. 
This program is the product of Council's direction. The aim of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy is to provide one comprehensive program that guides the use of engineering tools, commonly known as "traffic calming devices," in responding to neighborhood traffic issues.
A. 
The Institute of Transportation Engineers defines traffic calming as follows: "Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for nonmotorized street users." Traffic calming devices can generally be divided into four categories: 1) vertical deflection; 2) horizontal shifts; 3) constrictions; and 4) diverters and closures. Examples of each of these devices are shown in Appendix B, Traffic Calming Toolbox.[1]
(1) 
Vertical deflection devices deflect the path of a vehicle in a vertical direction. These measures require motorists to slow considerably to minimize the impact when the vehicle passes over the device. Vertical deflection devices include speed humps, raised crosswalks and raised intersections.
(2) 
Horizontal shift devices shift the path of a vehicle in a horizontal direction, forcing motorists to slow to maneuver around the devices. Horizontal shifts have a secondary effect in that they tend to break up the straight sight lines of a roadway, which in turn slows motorists by reducing the comfortable speed of travel. Examples include traffic circles, chicanes and medians.
(3) 
Constriction devices narrow the roadway and slow motorists by reducing the comfortable speed of travel. Constrictions include curb extensions, neckdowns and chokers. Other types of more passive constrictions are on-street parking, narrowed lanes and the addition of bicycle lanes.
(4) 
Traffic diverters, street closures and turn restrictions are another type of traffic calming measure. These are generally measures that alter the transportation circulation system by prohibiting access to existing streets.
[1]
Editor's Note: Appendix B is included at the end of this chapter.
B. 
Some agencies have had traffic calming programs for several decades now. Many of these programs have been successful. However, some agencies have since set up traffic calming removal programs and set moratoriums on implementing new devices. This movement is largely attributed to the proliferation of extremely restrictive traffic calming devices across an agency without due regard for the movement of traffic and the cumulative impacts. Therefore, it is particularly important to determine the need and appropriateness of devices as part of the traffic calming policy in order to reduce the likelihood of later implementing a traffic calming removal policy.