1 of 2
Photo by Savannah Schmidt.
Ann Shreve stands with daughter Bennett and son Will in front of the No Thru Traffic sign in front of their home on Halbrook Lane. The constant flow of traffic through the neighborhood caused Shreve to be concerned for her kids’ safety.
2 of 2
Map courtesy of city of Mountain Brook.
Richard Caudle presented a map at the September Mountain Brook City Council meeting with the traffic study findings, comparing the number of cars that used the streets before and after the cut-through prevention efforts were implemented.
Mountain Brook’s Halbrook Lane and Arundel Drive have been a topic of conversation at many City Council meetings in the past two years, and the streets have seen several changes in 2024, with the potential for more to come.
The cause of all this chatter? Cut-through traffic. Residents along the streets have voiced concerns over the high volume of cars using the roads.
Mountain Brook’s council first took up the issue in late 2022 after residents reached out, and officials continue to look for a solution. The council chamber was full on Sept. 26 as council members and city residents gathered for a work session to discuss the topic.
“Now the council needs to decide, what are we going to do that’s permanent in nature?” Council President Virginia Smith said.
The meeting was held specifically for the council to review its recent efforts. The council passed a no-through-traffic ordinance and installed corresponding signs in May, placed speed humps on streets on July 18-19 and added chicanes on July 23.
Despite these efforts, residents have requested that the city vacate streets, making them private to stop motorists from cutting through.
“A sidewalk would be amazing,” said Ann Shreve, a resident on Halbrook Lane who is concerned for her childrens’ safety. “But closing the road seems like the only option.”
According to residents of the two streets, traffic issues began when construction in 2020 closed Crosshaven Drive in Vestavia Hills, and Halbrook and Arundel were designated as detour routes. Many residents say people continue to use the streets as a cut-through even though the construction was completed in 2021.
“When that work was done and Crosshaven was closed off, a lot of people learned about this cut through, which had been there, but all of a sudden it became very popular, and the numbers did go really way up,” Smith said.
Coincidentally, Smith lived in the area at the time of construction, so she saw the change firsthand.
Despite the anecdotal accounts from residents, there is no data on street traffic in the area from before the Crosshaven construction, according to traffic engineer Richard Caudle, so it’s difficult to gauge the lasting impact.
Caudle works for Skipper Consulting inc., which specializes in traffic engineering. When the city began taking steps to address the traffic, Skipper was called in to complete a traffic study to help council members understand the impacts of the changes.
Initial numbers from the study, taken in January 2023, showed nearly 2,500 cars using Halbrook each day, and almost 800 used Arundel.
Map courtesy of city of Mountain Brook.
Richard Caudle presented a map at the September Mountain Brook City Council meeting with the traffic study findings, comparing the number of cars that used the streets before and after the cut-through prevention efforts were implemented.
Caudle presented the findings of the study at the Sept. 26 meeting, showing that based on numbers from September, the changes decreased traffic nearly 30% along Halbrook Lane and roughly 13% on Arundel Drive. However, since the ordinance, speed humps and chicanes were all implemented in such a short timeframe, Caudle said, the findings of the study make it difficult to determine which change made the most impact or if it was a combination of the three.
“We have shifted the needle on the traffic on Halbrook. We’ve made significant progress,” Caudle said. “But by no means have we cut out all of the quote-unquote cut-through traffic.”
He mentioned that while the numbers dropped, there is no industry standard for what an acceptable amount of through traffic is on a residential street. He also noted that the characteristics of a residence, such as set-back distance or a circle driveway, can impact the safety and traffic flow of the street, not just how many cars use the road.
While the changes have ultimately reduced traffic, many people expressed disapproval during the meeting.
Multiple people mentioned that closing the street to through traffic results in blind left turns onto Overton Road, causing potentially unsafe situations. Another mentioned how the chicanes can cause confusion for drivers, while others brought up the issue of drivers failing to heed stop signs along Halbrook.
A few commenters suggested things like traffic lights or even traffic cameras to enforce speed limits and stop signs to increase safety in the area.
On Oct. 14, the council passed a no-truck ordinance, which makes it illegal for trucks to use residential streets not specifically identified as an acceptable route. Smith also mentioned the possibility of making the current speed humps more robust to deter drivers, or the city may remove some of the additions in order to see which ones have the most impact. The council planned to discuss and decide traffic calming measures at its Oct. 28 meeting, which was after Village Living went to press. Visit https://www.villagelivingonline.com/news/city-council-removes/ for the results of that meeting.
“Based on what Richard said about the way we implemented them, it was hard to gauge which one had the most impact,” Smith said. “If the council decides to remove anything, or build sidewalks or whatever, I think that we should do it one at a time and then give it a little bit for traffic to settle and see what impact it has. But, of course, it’s a full council decision, so I don’t know what we’ll all do.”
While the future of the streets remains unclear, there is one thing of which Smith is sure.
“I do know this for a fact,” she said, “not everybody is going to be happy, and there is no good answer.”
