Lakewood City Council agreed to lower residential speed limits on April 1, 2024, however what to lower them to is still in question. Council is reacting to a rash of complaints about speeding, however, Lakewood Police cited a lack of safety incidents. Lakewood Traffic Engineering cited studies that showed that lowering the speed limit 5 mph will turn into a 1 mph decrease, and sometimes there’s a overall speed increase, because drivers think that the new speed limit is unreasonable so they ignore it. Council relies on a report from the Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) to show the good intentions of speed reduction. Other programs that were discussed include automatic ticketing cameras and red-light cameras. All of these proposals will likely operate at a loss, as shown by recent experience in Aurora and other cities.
The speed reduction concept started years ago, with an assignment to the LAC to study the issue, which was presented June 12, 2023. The LAC report showed several ways of slowing people down, but did not show the other side by fully reporting effectiveness or unintended consequences. They also assumed a low-level residential speeding problem was a safety problem.
At that time, Lakewood Councilor Rich Olver sounded the alarm the issue was coming and was told he was a conspiracy theorist.
The Lakewood Police Department and Public Works Department had a slightly different view from the LAC, as presented on April 1. Their experience in the city showed that speeding was more of a complaint issue than a safety issue. A lack of safety issues would present problems with being able to secure speed photo radar because those cameras require working with CDOT on establishing safety corridors. The corridor must show an existing pattern of safety incidents, such as accidents or reckless driving, which do not exist on the streets requested by City Council. Complaints alone may not be enough to justify the problem.
Although the LAC proposal lists cities that lower speed limits, staff research shows that they are not effective or long-lasting without police enforcement. Changing the sign will do little to nothing, decreasing speeds only one to two miles per hour. Boulder showed an increase in speed as drivers got angry at the change and pushed back. Councilors such as Shahrezaei and Low argued that staff may not be as knowledgeable as the LAC on this issue.
“It’s not good policy to make most of our residents outlaws” Staff response to “Why not go down to 20 mph”
NOTE: It is important to note that the discussion did not differentiate between people going <10 mph over, versus aggressive drivers going >10 mph. The latter is more serious and those drivers are most apt to ignore all signs.
Staff already cite lack of resources for dealing with other, more serious issues. On traffic concerns, they urge Council to look at red light cameras because running red lights presents an evidence-based safety concern. However, staff cite research to show no camera will generate enough revenue to cover the cost, meaning that Lakewood would lose money on any of these efforts with dubious return in safety.
Aurora is stopping their pilot program and other cities who lowered speed limits to 20 mph had to raise them up to 25 mph due to public backlash. There was no report that residents were happier with the 25 mph ending.
Council seemed to prepared to stick to their preconceived notions that speed limits must be reduced based on the LAC report requested by Council. They agreed 10-1 that speed limits must be lowered, but debate continues on what to lower the limit too. Additional research on cameras will proceed.
Notable Council Quotes and Position Statements:
Stewart: Wants to lower limits to 20 mph and acknowledges that the result may only be one or two miles per hour less, but that one or two miles per hour less could save a pedestrian’s life. Not interested in red light cameras or enforcement in high-traffic areas.
Shahrezaei: Says Golden and Denver have gone to 20 mph so it would make sense to match our neighbors. Argues that the police and staff don’t have enough data to draw conclusions but the LAC does. Interested in red light cameras.
Olver: “I applaud the reality-based thinking [by the staff].” Would like to stay at 30 mph and look into red light cameras.
Low: “Very much in favor of reducing the speed limit”. Argues with staff whether it is really necessary to work with CDOT to justify and set up safety corridors and would like to find a way to make it happen. Argues that the staff presentation is mostly conjecture. Summed up that what he heard staff say was that lowering to 25 would have no real effect and going to 20 mph made things worse but if he saw data that going to 20 saved lives then he’d agree. Interested in red light cameras.
Labure: Favors 20 mph. Focuses on enforcement consequences. Raises concerns on major arterials. Interested in red light cameras and noise level monitoring.
Mayott-Guerrero: Says that since Lakewood is in a region of 20 mph, touching Golden, that this a known best practice. Advocates for redesigning streets with tree medians and bike lanes, with more speed limit signs. Not interested in red light cameras
Cruz: Would like to see the more expensive street redesign measure and lowering to 20 mph because it would be an important investment in pedestrian safety and climate goals. Not interested in red light cameras
Rein: Asked questions about technology effectiveness and data collection. Favors 25 mph. Not interested in red light cameras
Sinks: Favors 25 mph. Would like red light cameras but not one per ward, instead at targeted intersections. Advocates for noise meters for speeders (staff respond there is no law that would allow that).
Nystrom: Favors 25 mph. Asks for more research. Interested in red light cameras
Strom: Favors 25 mph. Not interested in red light cameras
Lakewood Informer 