Chesterfield's decision to remove curb bump-out islands—those extended sidewalk protrusions into the street—has triggered the usual outcry from traffic-calming enthusiasts. But let's be honest: These obstructions are more about bureaucratic box-checking than real safety, and their removal is a long-overdue correction to misguided urban planning.

Chesterfield, Missouri, has decided to remove speed bumps from certain neighborhoods following resident complaints and city evaluations. The decision highlights a debate over traffic calming measures, balancing safety concerns with resident convenience.

 Many residents argued that speed bumps caused excessive noise, vehicle damage, and inconvenience, particularly for emergency vehicles and daily commuters. Some found them ineffective in slowing traffic long-term, as drivers would speed up again after passing them. Fire departments and ambulance services reported that speed bumps delayed emergency responses, a critical factor in life-threatening situations. The city conducted studies showing that speed bumps did not significantly reduce accidents in some areas, making them an unjustified expense. Maintenance costs (installation, repairs) were deemed not cost-effective compared to alternative traffic calming solutions.

Chesterfield, Missouri is making the right call, and other cities should rethink their obsession with intrusive street modifications.

1. Curb Bump-Outs Are Traffic Solutions in Search of a Problem

They Don't Actually Stop Speeding—They Just Annoy Drivers

Proponents claim bump-outs "calm traffic" by narrowing lanes, forcing drivers to slow down. But in reality?

• Aggressive drivers don't care—they swerve around them or barrel through anyway.

• Cautious drivers overcompensate, braking unnecessarily and causing rear-end near-misses.

• They create choke points, especially when delivery trucks or garbage vehicles try to navigate around them.

If the goal is consistent speed control, there are far better methods (speed cameras, better signage, targeted enforcement). Bump-outs are just physical clutter that frustrate drivers without solving the core issue.

They Disrupt Traffic Flow for Minimal Benefit

Bump-outs might make urban planners feel like they're "doing something," but they often:

• Increase congestion by reducing lane space.

• Cause bottlenecks when multiple cars try to merge around them.

• Confuse drivers, especially in low-light conditions where visibility is poor.

If Chesterfield's data shows they aren't reducing accidents, why keep them?

2. They Create Safety Hazards—Despite Claims Otherwise

Pedestrian Safety? More Like Pedestrian Danger

Bump-outs are marketed as pedestrian-friendly, but in practice:

• They force pedestrians into the road sooner, putting them closer to moving traffic.

• Drivers focused on navigating the bump-out may not see crossing pedestrians.

• Snow and ice accumulation around bump-outs creates slip hazards in winter.

If the city truly cared about walkability, it would invest in:
✔ Better-lit crosswalks
✔ Raised intersections (not mid-block obstructions)
✔ Pedestrian-activated signals

Emergency Vehicle Access Is Still a Problem

Like speed bumps, bump-outs restrict lane space, making it harder for:

• Fire trucks to maneuver.

• Ambulances to pass through quickly.

• Snowplows to clear streets efficiently.

Cities that prioritize real safety don't sacrifice emergency response times for questionable traffic experiments.

3. Hidden Costs—Financial and Practical

Maintenance Nightmares

Bump-outs require:

• Constant repairs (curb damage from plows, vehicles clipping them).

• Extra landscaping (if they include greenery, which needs watering/trimming).

• Winter upkeep (snow removal around them is harder).

All this for a feature that most drivers and residents dislike? Not a smart use of tax dollars.

They Hurt Local Businesses

In commercial areas, bump-outs:

• Reduce street parking, hurting shops that rely on drive-up customers.

• Make deliveries harder, discouraging truck access.

• Create awkward drop-off zones for rideshares and disabled passengers.

If Chesterfield wants a vibrant local economy, it shouldn't prioritize obstacles over accessibility.

4. Better Alternatives Exist—Chesterfield Should Embrace Them

Instead of clinging to failed 1990s-era traffic gimmicks, the city should focus on:

Dynamic Speed Enforcement

• AI-powered speed cameras that ticket only the worst offenders.

• Radar feedback signs (cheaper and less intrusive than bump-outs).

Smarter Road Design

• Roundabouts (proven to reduce severe crashes by 90% vs. traditional intersections).

• Chicanes (curved lane shifts)—slows traffic without abrupt obstructions.

Targeted Police Patrols

• Visible enforcement in problem areas works better than passive obstacles.

Conclusion: Chesterfield Is Fixing a Mistake—Other Cities Should Too

Curb bump-outs are a classic case of "well-intentioned but poorly executed" urban planning. They:
❌ Don't reliably slow traffic.
❌ Create new safety risks.
❌ Waste taxpayer money on upkeep.
❌ Frustrate drivers, emergency crews, and businesses alike.

Chesterfield's removal is a step toward smarter, data-driven streets—not a surrender to reckless driving. If safety is the goal, let's use 21st-century solutions, not outdated physical barriers.

The road to better traffic management isn't through more obstructions—it's through smarter design. Chesterfield gets it.