2001-03-19 Special Called Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Browse Search

e e LEGAL ISSUES 123 potential liability by assuring that the need for the features was clearly established in writ- ing,and that a thorough evaluation of their potential impacts was conducted. Some juris- dictions have developed local design standards and warrants for the installation of such devices as diverters and traffic circles. In any case, a traffic control device or scheme should be designed so that a reasonable driver acting reasonably and exercising ordinary care would be able to readily perceive the intent of the device and safely negotiate that area of the street system. Other Legal Requirements In some jurisdictions, additional legal requirements must be met in order for a neighbor- hood traffic control plan to be valid. In particular, some states in the United States require formal studies of any action that could have a significant effect on the environment. Neigh- borhood traffic control plans that divert substantial'amounts of traffic potentially could have-such an effect if traffic flow on alternate routes worsens, for example, air pollution and energy consumption could increase due to additional stops and starts and lower speeds. Longer routes could produce similar effects. Thus an environmental study may be needed. Other states or local jurisdictions have requirements for public notice and hearings for actions that change circulation plans; still others ~uu:e _r~~j~_\\'J~YJ!~,e du!YJ!~watrA __ -planningrommissiC5ICIn-generaI~ocaIJUiisarctfons should talce care to comply with all such requirements, since failure to do so could be grounds for a lawsuit. Challenges Based on the Plan's Impact Even when there is no question of lack of authority, or of noncompliance with standards or other legal requirements, neighborhood traffic control actions are sometimes challenged by opponents. One ground of action is that property owners' access has been limited. In general, however, unless access to the property in question has been denied completely, the courts have not considered the inconvenience suffered sufficient to challenge the diver- sion; the courts generally have treated the inconvenience as "an incidental result of a law- ful act. ,,2 , Another challenge to traffic restriction may come from travelers, who may complain that they are discrimi~ against by a neighborhood protection scheme. Such complaints in the past have been made on the ground that the injured party has been denied equal protection as provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, in a case dealing with resident permit parking, the U.S. Supreme Court said: .. . . r ~ r I: r I' : I .:. :( ~ J ! , , A comm unity may also decide that restrictions on the flow of outside traffic into par- ticular residential areas would enhance the quality of life. thereby reducing noise, traffic hazard, and liner. By defmition, discrimination against nonresidents would inhere in such restrictions.3 ~ The Court thus cast substantial doubt on the likelihood that equal protection could be successfully used to challenge an action restricting traffic merely on the grounds that nonresidents are treated differently from residents. , In general, challenges to otherwise authorized traffic control schemes on the grounds that they cause incidental inconvenience to some parties are likely to fail; a community may divert traffic and partially restrict access, but still successfully withstand a legal chal- , 2 See, e.g., Mackie Y. CiJyofSeatlle, 1978.576 Pacific Rcponer. 2<1., 414. 3 Calmly Board of Arlington Y. Richards, 1977. 434 Uni~ States Reponer 5, ~- i , t ;