Leaf Blowers: Retain, Enhance, and Expand the Ban!

The Village of Wilmette is considering changes to its current leaf-blower ordinances.

There are at least five excellent reasons to retain, enhance and expand upon the current ban on gas-powered leaf blowers:

- Noise abatement,
- Pollution reduction,
- Enforcement revenue,
- Legal defensibility, and
- Community support.


1. Noise abatement
Even the quietest gas-powered leaf-blowers are 10 times louder (65-70 decibels or dBA) than outdoor noise levels considered safe by the World Health Organization (55 dBA). To make matters worse, according to the leaf-blower manufacturers' own lobbying organization, the average gas-powered leafblower is exponentially louder than the quietest blowers, creating up to 90-110 dBA - note that decibel levels are measured on a logarithmic scale. Given the population of families in Wilmette, many young children are napping during prime hours when landscapers typically use leaf-blowers. Even the quietest gas-powered leaf blowers are 100 times louder than outdoor noise levels considered to promote healthy sleep (45 dBA).

2. Pollution reduction
According to the American Lung Association, the typical gas-powered leaf blower emits as much smog as 17 cars. Leaf blower motors are inordinately large emitters of CO, NOx, HC, and PM according to a recent study conducted for the California Air Resources Board. The two-stroke engine fuel used in most leaf blowers is a gasoline-oil mixture, and thus especially toxic. Particles from combustion are virtually all smaller than PM2.5. Leaf-blowers furthermore create unique hazards by unnecessarily stirring up a noxious brew of dangerous particulate matter, including lead, mercury, arsenic, molds, pollens, pesticides and animal fecal matter.

3. Enforcement revenue
It is a specious argument that it costs too much to enforce a leaf-blower ban. If Wilmette's current enforcement efforts are costing more than the revenue brought to the city by fines, then the Village should increase the fines and/or decrease the cost of enforcement by making infractions easier to report and enforce. For example, to improve enforcement of its (more comprehensive) leafblower ban, the Santa Monica, California city council is considering expanding fines beyond landscapers to the property owners that hire them. Santa Monica has also taken several steps to improve enforcement, including an online reporting website and a warning system for first-time infractions. Palo Alto, California also made some adjustments back in 2007 or 2008 in order to make their enforcement more cost-effective. Wilmette could also tax and/or require registration of gas leaf-blowers to cover enforcement cost.

4. Legal Defensibility
Given the specific noise and pollution issues attributable to gas-powered leafblowers, and the relative ease of employing alternatives to leaf-blowers (e.g. raking), it would seem that gas-powered leafblowers represent a highly defensible stand-alone target for a ban. Dozens of towns have successfully implemented leaf-blower bans and limits: Evanston (IL), Rye (NY), Yonkers (NY), Pasadena (CA), Woodside (CA), Santa Monica (CA), Palo Alto (CA), Menlo Park (CA), Portland (OR), Los Angeles (CA) to name a few. To our knowledge, none of these ordinances has faced a serious or successful legal challenge. The only recent threatened challenge of which we are aware (in Palo Alto) never materialized, and was not related to the actual ordinance. If there is something specific and peculiar about Wilmette's ban that would make it difficult to defend, then there appears to be dozens of other municipalities that offer a potential model for something more defensible. If some trustees are concerned that it is difficult to maintain a residential ban on leaf-blowers, while allowing leaf-blowers in more commercial settings, they should review Palo Alto's implementation of the ban. Palo Alto's distinction between residential and commercial zones seems straightforward, reasonable, and easy to interpret.

5. Community Support
There is broad support for a ban in Wilmette. If properly surveyed, a majority of residents would most likely support an even stricter and more comprehensive than what we have today.

Trustee Cam Krueger recently emailed a survey to his mailing list of residents. I hope Mr. Krueger's recent survey generates unbiased results, and I applaud him for trying to gauge Village opinion. But given that Mr. Krueger strongly asserted certain highly questionable assumptions in his introductory letter to his survey, we are wary of the results he may obtain.

In fact, Mr. Krueger's recent email to residents states highly questionable assumptions about the current leafblower ban as fact. Mr. Krueger states that leaf-blower bans such as the existing ordinance are not legally defensible, that we must target all outdoor power equipment if we ban gas-powered leaf-blowers, that we can not allow for specific exceptions, and that it is too costly to enforce a ban. Each of these assertions is simply false. There has not been a successful recent challenge to any of the dozens of existing municipal leaf-blower bans. Gas-powered leaf-blowers can be uniquely targeted because of their high combination of noise pollution (averaging an incredible 90-110 decibels) and air pollution (as much smog as 17 cars + unique capability to stir up dangerous particulate matter). Municipalities like Palo Alto can and do allow for different regulations in residential versus commercial zones. And there are many opportunities to improve enforcement to make it more cost-effective and revenue-generating. Mr. Krueger's note is particularly disappointing given he campaigned on the premise that he would evaluate environmental issues based on cost-benefit analysis and facts.

Please write the Village trustees and Village President (Chris Canning) to tell them your opinion on this issue.

Chris Canning: canningc@wilmette.com

Mike Basil: mwbasil@wilmette.com

Cameron Krueger : kruegerc@wilmette.com

Ted McKenna: mckennat@wilmette.com

Karen Spillers: spillersk@wilmette.com

Al Swanson: swansona@wilmette.com

Mari Terman: mariterman@comcast.net

Partial Victory

Great news!

The lower speed limit (25mph) and the stop sign at 9th and Greenleaf are approved!!!!

Thanks to everyone who helped make this happen!

Unfortunately, the vote to remove the centerline stripe resulted in a 3-3 tie.

A majority vote is needed for approval, and one of the transportation commission members was absent. Had there been a 3-3 vote on a motion to add the centerline stripe in the first place it would not have passed either. But as we all know, there was no vote. So we're stuck with the stripe until we get another vote on the issue.

Now that the data is on the table, I think it's clear the commission members understand the center stripe has not helped to reduce speeds - and likely encourages speeding. However, there seemed to be concern about the unbudgeted cost of removal ($1200). It seems residents are more than willing to foot that cost, so we'll likely push this to another vote as we can.

Post-Striping Results from the Village

Hello Greenleaf!

I just received the raw speed results from the Village.
I have also done some preliminary analysis here.
The raw results are in PDF form - which unfortunately Google does not support for publishing to Blogger - but I can email them to you if you email me at restoregreenleaf@gmail.com.

My initial conclusion is that the data shows the striping has clearly not worked, and that we need to pursue other alternatives.

1. The results do NOT demonstrate that the striping has reduced speeding on Greenleaf:

a. The Village has provided no pre-striping comparison data for the eastern half of the street (400-700 block).. and the results show there is still a substantial amount of speeding going on.. with over 50% of cars speeding on the Eastbound 400 and 500 blocks.. and approximately 35-50% of cars speeding on the 400 through 700 blocks in aggregate.

b. The post-striping data for the western half of the street (800-1000 block) appears to have two significant bias issues. All the readings except for the eastbound 900 block were taken on 4/20 through 4/24 when there was a highly visible portable radar unit on the 700 block of the street. This would have biased speeds downward. Furthermore, the post-striping data for the westbound 800 block was taken from a Nu-metrics unit that appears to be calibrated incorrectly and biased downwards. The two samples from this Nu-metrics unit (#3291) show results that appear anomalous and downwardly biased when compared to the samples from the neighboring blocks. Even with these biases, the Westbound results for the eastbound 800 and 1000 block showed no significant change, and the 900 block showed only a 1mph decrease in both directions. The westbound 800 block which is biased by both the portable radar unit and the poorly calibrated Nu-metrics unit shows a 6mph decrease.

2. The results indicate a much lower ADT (average daily traffic volume) on the eastern half of the street. Further calling into question why Greenleaf should have a centerline. According to Department of Transportation code, centerlines are normally reserved for streets that have 2-3x the volume of Greenleaf. There is no safety reason for having the centerline, several US municipalities narrow streets with edgelines AND without centerlines (Pasadena, CA, Alameda, CA, Anne Arundel County, MD, etc, etc.)... And we have already pointed out studies that show centerline REMOVAL significantly enhances safety on roads like Greenleaf.

3. The data illustrates we need to pursue other alternatives (lower speed limit? stop sign? remove the centerline and/or parking lanes?) to calm traffic on Greenleaf.

I'll look forward to our further discussion with the Village.

Next Transportation Committee Meeting about Greenleaf Avenue set for May 13

Thank you again for all of your support!

According to a note I received from the Village, the next transportation committee meeting regarding Greenleaf Avenue will be on May 13. It appears that the Village will strive to provide data and analysis on the key issues we have raised concerning the striping added to the street last Fall, the speed limit, and the potential for a stop sign.

I hope many of you will be able to attend the May 13 meeting.

The Case for Removing the Greenleaf Centerline - The Pasadena Example and Many Others...

Just received the City of Pasadena Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Community Handbook from a college friend. The handbook outlines Pasadena's very thoughtful and professional traffic calming program.

Those of you familiar with Pasadena, California know that it has residential neighborhoods very similar to Wilmette: classic 1920's housing stock, grid road layouts, etc. So I would regard this as highly relevant.

Here is the official policy on "Markings/Striping Changes - Removal of Centerline on Residential Streets" from page 22 of the pdf file (page 17 of the handbook):

Centerlines can provide drivers with clear delineation of travelways. On residential local streets that are relatively narrow (36’-42’) with low traffic volumes, centerlines may induce speeding because drivers’ travelways are clearly delineated. Experience has shown that the removal of centerlines on local streets results in more cautious driving behavior. Painted edgelines have a similar effect. Edgelines visually reduce the width of the roadway causing drivers to be more aware.

Interesting.. so it's official City of Pasadena policy (based on experience and empirical data on traffic safety) to remove centerlines when painting edgelines on local streets that are 36'-42'. Above is a picture of Greenhill Avenue in Pasadena - a street that has been visually narrowed with edgelines without a centerline.

Our Greenleaf Avenue is 38'. Yet our Transportation Department believes that centerline removal is somehow radical and unsafe.. and could not articulate any data supporting this theory at our last meeting.

Also note that "Community Involvement" is the first step in Pasadena's process. That's a novel idea. :-)

The Pasadena example is just one example.

Here are examples in Maryland at the following link on the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) website: "Both Anne Arundel and Howard Counties have painted parking lane lines WITHOUT centerline striping on residential streets. This visually narrows the available roadway and has resulted in reductions of 3mph to 4mph in vehicle travel."

There is a thoughtful study commissioned by the Wiltshire County Council in the UK that shows a 33% reduction in accidents due to centerline removal on 12 different roads. Below is a street scene of one of the examples:



Below is another successful example of centerline removal in Geneva, Switzerland:



The list goes on and on and on...

Furthermore the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices from the US Department of Transportation Section 03B-01 states:

Centerline markings should be placed on paved urban arterials and collectors that have a traveled way of 6.1 m (20 ft) or more in width and an ADT of 4,000 vehicles per day or greater. Greenleaf has less than half that ADT.

Where is the proof that eliminating the centerline on Greenleaf would present a hazard? I don't see it. If anything, it's the opposite.

Thank You!

Wanted to extend a big, heartfelt thank you to everyone who stayed for yesterday's three-hour marathon meeting about traffic calming on Greenleaf!!

A BIG thank you to all our neighbors who gave up Wednesday night time with their families and friends to express their concerns and opinions!

A BIG thank you to the volunteers on the Transportation Commission who gave up their Wednesday night to hear our concerns. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!

A BIG thank you to the Village Engineering Team, Police Department, and Public Safety Officers! We appreciate your thoughtful consideration, your attempt to bring solid facts to the table, and the long hours!

A BIG thank you to Chris Canning. Who made time to attend and listen to at least part of the meeting.

So what next? It appears that the Transportation Commission wants more data before making a decision on the striping, speed limit, and a stop sign.

My suggestion is that we work with the Commission and Engineering Team to ensure that we have the appropriate data on the table to make a solid decision at the next meeting (April?).

I will attempt to organize a meeting to get some alignment among our neighbors about what data and analysis we would like to see. Please email me at RestoreGreenleaf@gmail.com for more info.

Again.. Thanks again you for all of your support and thoughtful consideration.

I have to admit.. for part of that meeting.. I had a line from a song running through my head.. "I'm moving back to Los Angeles.. I do believe I've had enough."
But no plans to move back to Santa Monica yet... :-)

Results to Date - 98% of Survey Respondents Want to Eliminate Centerline Stripe

58 petition signatures received to date.
1 negative response to the on-line survey.
All the rest of the on-line survey responses were positive and overlapped with the petitions.
So... 98% of survey respondents want to eliminate the centerline.