Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-01 - AGENDA REPORTS - TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES (2)INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Smyth and Councilmembers FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Manager DATE: July 1, 1997 SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES At the April 22, 1997 City Council meeting, Councilmember Klajic inquired about the feasibility of using traffic calming devices on residential City streets. The City Council directed staff to conduct research on this issue and report back to the Council at a later date. The following is staffs report. Goal of traffic calming - Traffic calming is defined as traffic control actions that serve to minimize the undesirable impacts of -motor vehicles on local human activities. _ It is intended to retain neighborhood liveability on local (residential) streets impacted by increased use and misuse of the street system by the motoring public. Accessibility and mobility should not be significantly reduced for residents, visitors, or services. Traffic calming techniques - Traffic calming techniques were developed to reduce speeding problems and heavy traffic flow on residential streets. The attached Table I illustrates some of the known traffic calming techniques. The table also includes information on installation and maintenance costs, and associated positive/negative impacts of using such techniques. More detailed information on these techniques, with diagrams, is illustrated individually in the attachments. Issues on using traffic calming techniques - The use of traffic calming techniques is at the discretion of the respective agency, and can tremendously impact the agency's liability, finances, and ability to provide adequate services. Issues to evaluate prior to establishing a policy on the use of traffic calming techniques include, but are not limited to: • Emergency vehicle response time (fire, police, ambulance, and other emergency responses). • Liability - Traffic calming techniques are not official traffic control devices. Evaluate the potential liability of using each technique and minimize it. • Evaluation of the effectiveness and positivelnegative aspects of each technique. • Applicability and feasibility. • Overall financial impact - Assess all potential locations for traffic calming device requests and the financial impact of each. • Personnel impact - Assess additional staff time required to evaluate traffic calming requests and maintenance. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES July 1, 1997 Page 2 Guidelines and procedures. Design standards. Positive and negative aspects. Policies and procedures on traffic calming devices - Staff has obtained samples of policies/ procedures from other cities on installing traffic calming devices in their respective cities. The individual policies/procedures from the City of San Buenaventura, Pasadena and Santa Rosa are illustrated individually in the attachments. In order to determine the most viable traffic calming techniques for the City of Santa Clarita, staff recommends that a consultant who specializes in the area of neighborhood traffic management options be retained to conduct a comprehensive study on traffic calming alternatives and provide the legal basis for their implementation on the City's residential streets. Funding for this study is estimated to be approximately $60,000. Presently, no budget has been set aside to conduct the study. If the Council wishes to proceed with the study, staff also recommends that funds be appropriated for this study when this item is brought back to the Council. City Council discuss and provide direction on how to proceed with this item. If the Council wishes to proceed with this item, staff will initiate the process for hiring a consultant and will bring this item to the Council to award the contract and to request the appropriate budget. Table I - Samples of Neighborhood Traffic Management Options Exhibits A through K AY:lkl hafckcalming.ay Traffic Noise Pollution Management Speed Option Reduction Radar Trailer Yes Posting 25 mph Possible speed limit/ None radar warning No signs A Striping Yes Narrower None Lanes No Speed Humps Yes Roundabouts Yes Chokers Yes Turn Restrictions Possible Using Delineators One -Way No Streets TABLE I SAMPLES OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Volume Reduefrraffic Diversion Noise Pollution Bus Route Impacts Access Restriction Emergency Vehicle Response Impacts Increase In Street Maint, Cost Attachment No No Change None None None No $20,000 A No No Change None None None No $500 B Possible No Change None None None Yes $1,000- C $5,000 Yes Increase Yes None Some Yes $3,000 per D Problems hump Possible No Change Yes None Some Vandalism $15,000 E Constraints Possible No Change Yes None Possible No Doc. $25,000 F Problems Yes Decrease Yes Yes Minor Yes $1,000- G $3,000 Yes Possible Yes Yes Possible No $5,000 H AiNt"WIM, Description: A portable radar speed meter capable of measuring vehicle speed. It advises approaching motorists. of their speeds as compared to the legal speed limit for instant comparison. WON • Speed may be reduced where the radar trailer is placed. • An effective public relations and educational tool. CONS: • Not an enforcement tool. • Less effective on multi -lane roadways that have significant traffic volumes. In these cases there is limited ability to differentiate between more than one approaching vehicle. SPEED -% LIMIT 40�: YOUR * SPEED EXHIBIT "A" Ulm 0 1► U IV-0-1211► Description: This option involves posting 25 mph speed limit or radar warning signs on the street to regulate the speed of traffic. PROS: • Low cost installation that are popular with residents. • Reduces traffic speeds if backed up with regular enforcement. CONS: • High potential for violation when not enforced. • Increases cost of sign maintenance. RADA!/ STRICT ENFORCEMENT AREA EXHIBIT "B" j - ► ::: .IA H1I`►lx.� Description: Narrow lane width to 10 feet. This gives drivers discomfort of driving on narrow streets that do not lend itself to high speeds. The cost varies depending on the length of the street, approximately $3,000 per mile. • Easy and quick implementation. • The striping can be easily modified. • Speed may decrease and safety is improved through the provision of positive guidance to drivers. K01M • Increase the maintenance. • Not perceived as an effective tool for speed reduction. • Cost of resurfacing residential streets will increase. EXHIBIT "C" Description: Mounds of paving material placed across a roadway for the purpose of causing motorists to reduce their operating speed while driving on the roadway. PROS: • Reduces speed. • Can cause traffic to shift to arterial system and reduce cut through traffic. CONS: • Can cause traffic to shift to parallel residential streets. • The cost of speed humps, signs, and markings can be significant. • Emergency response time may be reduced. • Contents of vehicles can be jarred. EXHIBIT "D" Description: A small circular island (may be landscaped) placed in the center of an existing local street intersection, thus creating a small "roundabout." PROS: • Some reduction in speed. • Reduces accident potential. • Under certain conditions capacity can be increased. • Can use instead of stop signs. • An attractive landscaping opportunity for a neighborhood to express itself. CONS: • Required safety. signing may detract from its aesthetic quality. • Pedestrians and bicyclists must adjust to less traditional crossing patterns. • Some street parking may be lost. • At certain times, extensive roadwork required. s° '-�`amea i EXHIBIT "E" Description: Narrowing of a street at an intersection, midblock or a segment of a street in order to reduce width of the traveled -way by construction of a wider sidewalk or landscaped strip. PROS: • Slight slowing is normally the result. • Shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide a better visibility. • Can be designed to discourage truck traffic. CONS: • Potential obstacle for motorists to run into. • May impede bicycle mobility and safety. • May result in loss of street parking. • Can impede delivery truck movements. • May require reworking of surface drainage. EXHIBIT "F" iWRIWIRIM101 Intel_ Description: Delineators glued to the pavement surface are used to create a barrier to prevent vehicles from making certain movements in and out of a local street. PROS: • Reduces through volume of traffic. • Reduces certain types of accidents.. • Low cost installation. CONS: • Little reduction in speed. • Makes it more circuitous for residents to their destinations. • High maintenance effort. • May divert traffic onto adjacent street. • Not aesthetically pleasing. EXHIBIT "G" ONE WAY STREET Description: One or more streets designated as "one-way." PROS: • May reduce total volume on subject street, but may shift diverted traffic to another street. • Adds capacity to a street. CONS: • Can encourage increased speed. • Adverse travel distance results for local residents. • Restriction is subject to intentional violation. EXHIBIT "H" V Neighborhood Traffic Calming Devices Installation Policy or Procedure A. City of San Buenaventura - Local Street Only Request in writing Initial evaluation by City a. Technical feasibility and anticipated impacts. b. Determined the boundary of the "affected" area. Petition a. Required 80% of the total number of citizens in affected area. b. The person who submits the petition must attempt to contact all affected parties. 4. Petition Requirements a. All petition participants will be encouraged to participate in the costs directly associated with the installation of the requested traffic calming devices. b. A drawing showing the exact location and the affected boundary. c. Explain the location and nature of the proposed traffic calming devices. 5. Petition Review Process a. Verify the petition compliance (3 and 4). b. A letter sent to all signed parties (petition) and verify their support or opposition. C. Contact all affected agencies, such as Fire and Police. City's Action a. Evaluate and prepare a report for the City Council. 10.416162W iIYI Neighborhood Traffic Calming Devices Installation Policy or Procedure B. City of Pasadena on Speed Humps - Local Streets only 1. Request - by a representative of a local residential street 2. City staff consults with Fire and Police 3. Evaluation for possible installation 4. Petition required - if the evaluation determined the eligibility for an .installation: a. Required the majority (65% or more) supporting the measure. b. The, sponsor of the petition must contact every resident of the abutting properties. 5. Notification of surrounding area upon verification of the petition and collect response. If no opposition - conduct a detailed analysis for a recommendation. If a substantial opposition were received - conduct meetings with the affected people for an agreement. 6. In the event the number of requests exceed the fund available, develop a priority list by ranking the requests. EXHIBIT "J" Neighborhood Traffic Calming Devices Installation Policy or Procedure C. City of Santa Rosa 1. Request a. Resident b. Neighborhood petitions c. City Council or City Manager Initial Neighborhood Meeting a. Notify all affected residents b. Notify other service departments, such as Fire and Police c. Discuss the residents' view and concerns d. Offer some options Analysis - City staff conducts a detailed analysis Final Meeting - Discuss the result of analysis and the possible implementation of traffic calming devices. Prepare a report for the City Council. I0,4061I341ii1:rY City Council Study Session July 1, 1997 Call To Order: 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: All Councilmembers were present with the exception of Mayor Smyth who was out of town. Pledge of Allegiance: Led by Mayor Pro Tern Heidt. Item 1 PROPOSED PARENTAL RESPONSIBLILITY ORDINANCE: OVERVIEW - Management Analyst Kevin Tonoian provided a background and an overview of the proposed parental responsibility ordinance as a result of legislation that holds parents or guardians responsible for the actions of their minor children. Council discussion and concerns: the types of juvenile crimes being committed; the need for parents to take part in their kids' lives; suggested changes in wording within the ordinance so that it doesn't sound punitive; providing resources for parents; and sharing information. Public Participation: James.Robinson, who submitted a letter containing his comments; Randall Pfiester, who submitted an outline of his comments; and Edward Redd, who spoke in support. Motion by Boyer, second by Majic, to direct the City Manager to bring proposed Ordinance 97-3 back for first reading at the August 26, 1997 regular meeting of the City Council, with changes in wording. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered by those Councilmembers present. Item 2 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES - As directed by the City Council, staff conducted research on the feasibility of using traffic calming devices on residential City streets. Director of Building and Engineering Services Tony Nisich and City Traffic Engineer Bahman Janka explained the technique and types of calming devises and displayed overhead projections. Council discussion and concerns: preparing a project to submit for ISTEA funds; picking a school and working on a "safe route to school" on a voluntary basis; getting people involved with ceating amusing but pointed signs to get the message across to slow down traffic; and taking one area (perhaps around a school) and using it as an example to solve a problem. Public Participation: There was none. Mayor Pro Tem Heidt called for general Public Participation; there was none. Mayor Pro Tem Heidt adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk