City Council Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2025 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WARD: 7
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON MANDALAY COURT; APPROVE TARGETED POLICE ENFORCEMENT DURING EXCESSIVE SPEEDING; AND APPROVE INSTALLING CENTERLINE STRIPING ISSUES:
Consider implementation of speed humps on Mandalay Court between Tyler Street and Crest Avenue; approve targeted police enforcement during excessive speeding based on data-driven observations; and approve installing centerline striping.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
Approve the proposed speed humps on Mandalay Court between Tyler Street and Crest Avenue in support of the Transportation Board’s recommendations; Approve targeted police enforcement during excessive speeding based on data-driven observations; and Approve installing centerline striping.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
On October 1, 2025, the Transportation Board (Board) reviewed this matter; six of seven members were present. Staff recommended denial of the speed humps based on established criteria; however, the denial was appealed by residents on Mandalay Court. After a thorough discussion, the Board ultimately voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed speed humps along Mandalay Court between Tyler Street and Crest Avenue, requested targeted police enforcement during excessive speeding based on data-driven observations, and supports installing centerline striping.
BACKGROUND:
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) was designed to provide general guidelines for the assessment of traffic issues on local, collector, and arterial roadways throughout the City as well as outline various traffic mitigation measures which may serve as suitable solutions to demonstrated traffic issues.
As part of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), the city re-instated a formal Speed Hump Policy Guidelines and Procedure on May 7, 2024, to effectively address concerns related to speeding on residential streets. The goal of this policy is to enhance neighborhood safety by implementing traffic calming measures, such as speed humps, to reduce vehicle speeds on eligible residential streets. This policy aims to unite neighborhoods and identify appropriate measures to improve travel behavior for the benefit of affected communities. Speed humps are a potential secondary option for residential designated streets. A website outlining details of the Speed Hump Program has been developed – Speed Hump Program | Public Works A speed hump is an elongated mound in the roadway pavement surface extending across the traveled way designed perpendicular to the traffic flow. The purpose of a speed hump is to regulate traffic speeds by providing minor vertical deflection while driving through it. Speed humps are still considered experimental roadway features; therefore, additions, alterations, or removals of all speed humps may occur at any time.
DISCUSSION:
The city received a petition from the residents on Mandalay Court requesting speed humps to be installed on their street. The petition and roadway conditions on Mandalay Court between Tyler Street and Crest Avenue (Attachment 1 – Location Map) were reviewed for consistency with the City’s Speed Hump Program. The petition received indicates support by 32 of the 35 residents (91%) on Mandalay Court for speed humps, which meets the minimum requirement of 70% of the residents. There were no signatures from residents opposing the consideration of speed humps. Staff investigated speeds, volumes, and street geometrics. Comparing staff’s investigation of Mandalay Court with the City’s set guidelines for speed humps resulted in 6 out of 8 criteria are met. Based on the requirement to meet all 8 criteria, Mandalay Court does not qualify for speed humps per the City approved policy. A summary of the findings is provided on Attachment 2 and staff have provided all this information to the Mandalay Court residents. However, a letter of appeal (Attachment 6) was submitted to city staff to requesting for proposed speed humps to be reviewed by the Transportation Board.
Because the roadway does not meet the established criteria for speed hump installation, which would come at the cost of $21,480, and because staff are not aware of mitigating circumstances that would merit overriding the established criteria, staff recommend denial of the appeal.
Mandalay Court is a two-way (one lane in each direction) residential street located between Tyler Street to the west, and Crest Avenue to the east. It is approximately 1,330 feet in length and 36 feet wide, which meets the minimum required length of ¼ mile (1,320) and does not exceed the maximum width of 40 feet. There are 35 homes on both sides of the street meeting the minimum requirement of sixteen (16) homes for a double-loaded street. Attachment 3 illustrates the potential speed hump locations along Mandalay Court. There are three (3) speed humps shown.
There were two speed surveys and traffic counts conducted on Mandalay Court as part of staff’s investigation. The radar surveys measured the 85th percentile speed in the range of 34 mph to 35 mph on Mandalay Court which does not meet the 37-mph minimum required by the city program. The corresponding 24-hour two-way volume counts indicated total daily volumes in the range of 4290 to 4494 vehicles per day, which exceeds the maximum threshold of 1999 vehicles per day. The estimated vertical grade is in the range of 1.0%-4.6% along Mandalay Court which is below the maximum eight (8) percent vertical grade threshold. Photos of Mandalay Court are included in Attachment 7. Despite all the previously utilized speed management alternatives, vehicular speeding continues to persist with an 85th percentile speed in the range of 34MPH-35 MPH (9MPH-10 MPH over the prima facie speed limit of 25 MPH).
The Riverside Fire Department (RFD) has provided a general comment regarding proposed speed humps in consideration of potential impacts to emergency response times, if any. The RFD has requested the city to consider installing a Speed Bump (Type II) of Standard Plan 257 for new speed hump installations. The Type II Speed Bump has gaps in the middle to allow emergency vehicles to bypass speed humps on the roadway during an urgent emergency call. Golden Avenue between Pierce Street and Cypress Avenue currently has Type II Speed Bumps installed and there have not been any concerns with its utilization.
Staff has prepared an exhibit showing potential locations for the installation of speed humps. The locations are selected based on having adequate spacing between curves and intersections and adequate sight distance to allow for proper signing on each approach. Utility covers and driveways in the street are also avoided. Staff selected locations where signs may be placed on existing poles or streetlights to minimize the impacts of the signs on the neighborhood. A total of three (3) potential locations were found for speed humps. Each speed hump installed would potentially add an additional delay of 10 (ten) seconds to emergency vehicles. However, the usage of the Type II Speed Bumps would significantly minimize if not eliminate delays for emergency vehicles.
A review of our traffic accident records for the past three years on Mandalay Court from 2020 through 2025 shows four reported traffic collisions. There were no speed related collisions.
The City’s Speed Hump Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures are included in Attachment 5. Attachment 5 also illustrates the City’s Standard Plan Detail No. 251 – Speed Bump (Type II).
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has also published some Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps. One of the guidelines worth mentioning from the ITE guidelines is the spacing for speed humps (see Attachment 5). The exhibit displays a properly designed speed hump spacing in the range of 150–500-foot space on each side prior to the speed hump.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Engineering Speed Management Countermeasures offers an excellent resource for speed humps studies and resulting speed reduction effectiveness (Attachment 7). As documented, speed humps can be effective at reducing speeds in the range of 5-13 mph.
Conclusion:
Mandalay Court meets 6 of the 8 criteria of the City’s adopted policy for speed humps. It does not meet the maximum average daily traffic (ADT) threshold of 1999 vehicles per day. The observed ADT was in the range of 4290-4494, the observed 85th percentile speed was in the range of 34-35 mph not meeting the minimum speed of 37 mph. Based on the requirement to meet all 8 criteria, Mandalay Court does not qualify for speed humps per the City approved policy. A summary of the findings is provided via Attachment 2 and staff have provided all this information to the residents along Mandalay Court. However, a letter of appeal (Attachment 6) was submitted to city staff requesting for proposed speed humps to be reviewed by the Transportation Board. If speeds humps are approved, then there is a potential to add three (3) speed humps as shown in Attachment 3. If speed humps are not approved, then alternate traffic calming measures can be considered such as installation of posted speed limit signs, stop ahead signage & striping, centerline striping, and / or spot police enforcement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If approved, the total fiscal impact of the installation of speed humps, signage and pavement markings is estimated at $21,480. Funding is budgeted and available in the Measure A Fund, Speed Hump Traffic Calming Program account 9927230-440313.
Prepared by: Philip Nitollama, City Traffic Engineer
Approved by: Gilbert Hernandez, Public Works Director
Certified as to
availability of funds: Kristie Thomas, Finance Director/Assistant Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Kris Martinez, Assistant City Manager
Approved as to form: Rebecca McKee-Reimhold, Interim City Attorney Attachments:
Location Map
Speed Hump Criteria Checklist
Potential Locations
Traffic Count Data
Speed Hump Program Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines Appeal Letter
Presentation
Transportation Board Meeting Minutes (10/1/2025)
Mandalay Court Proposed Speed Humps ● Page 2