Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-07 - AGENDA REPORTS - SPEED HUMP PILOT PGM TRAFFIC (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO:Sm nd Cit Councilmembers FROM: en Pul ca p, City a er DATE: October 7, 2003 SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED HUMP PILOT PROGRAM AND UPDATE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council discuss staff's presentation and consider one of the following three alternatives for the Citywide speed hump program: Implementation of a Citywide speed hump program that is fully funded by the City. Implementation of a Citywide speed hump program through a City permit and inspection process with private funding. Conclude the pilot program, leaving the speed humps in place and not proceeding with the implementation of a Citywide speed hump program. BACKGROUND The purpose of this study session is to update the City Council on traffic safety since the December 2002 Study Session, and to present staff analysis of the traffic calming pilot project in the Old Orchard I and II neighborhoods. TRAFFIC SAFETY UPDATE The City of Santa Clarita continues to grow at a rate of approximately three percent annually. In response to this growth, the City has added new infrastructure to the street system. Since December 2002, the City has built nine new traffic signals and more than ten new roadway links, and has assumed maintenance of Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road (old State Route 126). Despite the increase in traffic due to growth, the City's traffic collision rate has decreased. The collision rate for 2003 is significantly better (ten percent less) than in 2002. It should also be noted that the City's 2002 collision rate was among the lowest in the State. A recent traffic safety evaluation conducted by the University of Berkeley Institute of Transportation finds that the City's 2002 collision rate ranks number 37 out of 45 comparably sized cities, where number 1 is the worst rated city for collisions. The City's collision rates from 2001 to 2003 are shown on Exhibit "A." NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED HUMP PILOT PROGRAM AND UPDATE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY October 7, 2003 — Page 2 Staff believes that the combined efforts of the City, Sheriff's Department, and local citizens to promote traffic safety have been effective. Since December 2002, the City has implemented many new traffic safety projects and programs, such as the High Accident Location and Mitigation Program, Roadway Safety Audit, and the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Too] Kit. Traffic signals at approximately 60 intersections were re -timed to improve traffic flow and reduce stop and go conditions. In addition, traffic safety has been promoted and discussed by City officials and concerned citizens at every public meeting. This has helped increase traffic safety awareness and personal responsibility in safe driving. The main reason for the significant traffic collision reduction this year is due to the Sheriff's Department stepping up traffic enforcement. As of August 15, 2003, the Sheriff's Department issued 35,256 traffic citations compared to 29,429 in the entire year of 2002. Projecting the current rate through the end of the year, this is an increase of 100 percent. A recent study, titled "Citations May Be the Ticket to Safety," conducted by the Universities of Stanford and Toronto, was published in the Los Angeles Times in July 2003. The article states that a driver who is ticketed by the police is 35 percent less likely to die in an automobile crash within the next four months. The article further states that one life is saved for every 80,000 tickets written, and an emergency room injury is prevented for every 1,300 tickets written. This study provides strong evidence that traffic enforcement benefits traffic safety. A copy of the article is in the City Clerk's Reading File. NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED HUMP PILOT PROGRAM In December 1999, the City Council approved a pilot traffic calming project, which consisted of 27 speed humps and a small traffic circle in the Old Orchard I and II neighborhoods. Staff was directed to report back to the City Council 18 months after the implementation of the project. This project was completed in May 2001 and the total project cost, which was about $100,000 dollars, was shared 50/50 between the City and the residents of the Old Orchard I and 11 neighborhoods. The project site plan and location of speed humps and traffic circle is shown on Exhibit `B." Before and After Study Result The City retained Willdan Associates, a traffic engineering firm, to conduct a "before and after" study on the overall effectiveness of these traffic humps. The same firm also conducted the study for the pilot program. A copy of the consultant's "before and after" study is in the City Clerk's Reading File. Traffic volume, speed, and cut -through data were collected in May 2000 before implementation of the traffic calming project. The same data was collected in January 2003 after installation. Traffic Volume — The traffic volume was generally reduced after the implementation of speed humps; about 12 percent in the Old Orchard I and 27 percent in the Old Orchard 11 areas. For example, traffic volume on Avenida Ronada was 182 vehicles less per day after the installation of speed humps, and 328 less vehicles per day on Avenida Entrana. The before and after traffic volume data was collected at 12 locations as shown in Exhibit "C." NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED HUMP PILOT PROGRAM AND UPDATE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY October 7, 2003 — Page 3 A Speed — Vehicle speed was also reduced after the implementation of speed humps. The average travel speed reduction was found to be in the 5 to 6 mph range. For example, Avenida Rondel experienced a reduction of 5 mph after implementation of speed humps, from 33 mph to 28 mph. The number of vehicles speeding in excess of 10 mph of the speed limit was also reduced significantly. The before and after speed data was collected at six locations as shown in Exhibit "D." Cut -Through Traffic - License plate surveys were conducted to analyze the effect on cut -through traffic. Based on the result and volume reduction, staff believes that speed humps had a deterring impact on the cut -through traffic in the two neighborhoods. However, the majority of neighborhoods in the City are with single access points; thus, the neighborhoods would not be benefited on volume and cut -through traffic reduction with the installation of speed humps. The only benefit would be in speed reduction. Issues There are five challenging issues associated with the use of traffic calming devices, mainly focused on speed humps: • Emergency Response Time - The most significant issue is the emergency vehicle response time. Studies have shown that each speed hump can slow an emergency vehicle up to 10 seconds. The Los Angeles County Fire Department does not support the installation of speed humps on public streets because they delay emergency response time, cause injuries to firefighters, and cause damage to heavy Fire Department vehicles (copy of Fire Department's Policy is attached). Staff also conducted a field test with a fire truck from local Fire Station 73. Staff measured time while the fire truck traveled the Old Orchard I area. Staff found that the fire truck could not travel more than 10 mph over each speed hump, and it had to slow down before the hump and speed up to gain speed afterwards. The total elapsed time for the fire truck to travel the area was an average of 4 minutes and 7 seconds, while the same distance was traveled by a large truck at a constant speed of 25 mph was 2 minutes and 50 seconds. The total delay caused by speed humps for a fire truck was measured to be 1 minute and 17 seconds, an average of 7 seconds for each speed hump. The Sheriff's Department is also concerned that speed humps reduce their emergency response time. • Financial Impact - The overall financial impact could be significant if the program is adopted and funded. The cost for the program is difficult to estimate at this time; however, if similar streets such as Old Orchard I and H (in terms of traffic volume, speed, and other traffic conditions) are used for the basis for speed hump program criteria, staff estimates more than 80 streets would be qualified for the program. Based on the above, the estimated cost for the speed hump program could reach into the range of $3 to $4 million (each speed hump costs about $3,200), which includes design, installation, and staff time. Staff prepared a draft policy/criteria for a Citywide speed hump program. NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED HUMP PILOT PROGRAM AND UPDATE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY October 7, 2003 — Page 4 • Private Funding Source - Should the City adopt a speed hump program, yet be unable to fund it, the program could be funded entirely by private residents in accordance with the City's permit and inspection process. The residents on a particular street could pool their money and then hire private contractors to construct the speed humps to the City's guidelines, specifications, and permitting requirements. This is similar to the process that a resident must go through to construct a driveway in the City's right-of-way. It should be noted that, even with private funding, the subject street still must meet the appropriate criteria for speed hump installation. Another option would be for the City to install the speed hump using private resident funding. However, the City's implementation of the program in this manner raises equal protection concerns. A copy of the City Attorney's opinion on this issue is in the City Clerk's Reading File. • Liability—The speed hump program may increase liability for the City because speed humps are not an official traffic control device according to the State's Vehicle Code. Montgomery County, Maryland experienced a legal action filed against the County based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The action alleged that disabled persons are deprived a safe, comfortable, and pain-free access to their homes because of speed humps on public streets. The County was able to successfully defend itself through the legal process; however, the likelihood of litigation against the City on this issue may increase should speed humps be implemented Citywide. • Staff Time -The program requires additional staff time to administer and maintain the program, which is estimated to be one person per day per week. Speed Hump Policy and Criteria Staff has developed a draft Procedures for the Installation of Speed Humps and Criteria (copy attached) for the City Council to consider adopting the program for the City. The criteria include the petition process, traffic volume, speed, and other requirements. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of implementing a speed hump program would range from $3 to $4 million if the program is funded by the City. Ongoing maintenance would require striping only, and has minimal fiscal impacts. NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED HUMP PILOT PROGRAM AND UPDATE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY October 7, 2003 — Page 5 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit "A" — City Collision Rates from 2001 to 2003 Exhibit `B" — Project Site Plan and Location of Speed Humps Exhibit "C" — Before and After Volume Data Exhibit "D" — Before and After Speed Data Draft Procedures for the Installation of Speed Humps Draft Criteria for the Installation of Speed Humps Fire Department Speed Hump Policy City Attorney's Draft Report on Use of Private Fund on Speed Hump Program (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Article entitled "Citations May Be the Ticket to Safety" (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Before and After Study by Willdan (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) AYI:lkl:vjj traffi6ayAneighborhood speed hump-rl.doe C y O C 02 i CLco L D © E S w a U ............................. OOi _ o 'S ma S LO N aaX` LL N 40 O •� O LO n } 0 NO � p O N co coco O O O O O O O O O O O O N co V N O c0 c0 N sa;ea/uolslllao lelol 0 U 1- w v 0 El / y Z M N Ir o 00) f o ix alit 0 m o z CO NM 40. CC CO cq A C� N LLJ o C� Zw o a U U z C + a v o � D w �0. o a ° x LO QO p a n M z w a0 wwl w m C w DRAFT PROCEDURES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS A representative of the local residential street, who believes the residents on his/her street will support the installation of speed humps, will submit a request in writing to the Traffic Division. 2. Traffic Division staff will make an initial determination of whether the street in question is eligible for further consideration for the installation of speed humps. Criteria considered will include, but not be limited to: street conforms to the definition of "Residence District" in the California Vehicle Code and qualifies for a 25 mph speed limit; street has a grade of 5% or less. City staff will also consult with the Sheriff and Fire Departments. 3. If it is determined, upon initial study, that the street in question is not eligible for speed humps, the representative will be notified in writing as to why the street is not eligible. 4. If it is determined that the street is eligible for further consideration, the representative of the street will be notified to submit a petition (forms provided by the City) from the abutting property owners or residents indicating that at least 67% support the installation of speed humps on their street. The sponsor of the petition is required to contact every property owner or resident of the abutting properties on the subject street. If the sponsor is unable to contact a property owner or resident, "NO CONTACT" will be noted on the petition signature space with the days and times the contact was attempted. It is required that the sponsor make at least two attempts on separate days to contact a property owner or resident. Any petitions submitted prior to eligibility determination (Step 2) by City staff will not be processed until eligibility is determined. In addition, any petitions submitted with incomplete information are subject to rejection. Upon verification of the petition, City staff will conduct a formal evaluation, including collecting traffic speed and volume measurements and reviewing the traffic accident history for the subject street. In addition, the Traffic Division will submit the petition to the Sheriff and Fire Departments for their comments. 6. Upon completion of the formal evaluation, the representative will be notified in writing as to whether or not the subject street meets the minimum criteria for installation of speed humps. It is the representative's responsibility to notify the other abutting property owners or residents of the results of the formal evaluation. The physical installation of speed humps and the associated traffic control devices shall conform to the design standards established by the City and all City procedures for roadway work within the public right-of-way, including all appropriate permits and inspections. DRAFT CRITERIA FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS 1. Street Tyne: Street shall conform to the definition of "Residence District" in the California Vehicle Code (Section 515) and qualify for a 25 mph speed limit. 2. Traffic Volume: Street shall have a minimum daily volume of 1,500 vehicles or a minimum hourly volume of 150 vehicles during any peak period. 3. Traffic Speeds: A speed survey shall demonstrate that the 85`h percentile speed is greater than 30 mph. 4. Street Length: Street shall have a minimum length of 1,000 feet. 5. Street Width: Street shall have only one lane in each direction. 6. Street Grade: Street shall not exceed a sustained grade of five percent. 7. Resident Survey: At least 67% of the affected residents (i.e. properties abutting the subject street) shall vote in favor of the speed humps. 8. Parallel Streets: Speed humps installation should not cause diversion of traffic to other residential streets. 9. Other Physical Considerations: Other physical characteristics that may limit the feasibility of speed humps on a particular street include: locations of driveways, locations of access covers to underground utilities, locations of catch basins and other drainage structures, existing drainage issues or difficulties. 10. Removal Policy: The removal of any speed humps, or series of speed humps, shall be considered following the same criteria and procedures used to determine the installation. Sep 05 03 09:44a I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose: To provide information regarding this Department's policy -on Speed Bumps and the Installation of Speed Humps. Background: Speed bumps and speed humps are designed to reduce vehicular speed, however, they impede the response of emergency vehicles. B. Scone: Informational to all Department personnel. C. Author: The Assistant Fire Chief (Fire Marshal) Fire Prevention Division, shall be responsible for the content, revision and annual maintenance of this Procedure. D. Definitions: p•2 SPEED BUMP: A roadway speed control measure that is from three to six inches in height with a length of one to three feet. These are commonly used in parking lots and on some private roadways. They require fire department apparatus slowing to 5 mph or less at the speed bump. SPEED HUMP: A roadway speed control measure that is a maximum of 2 5/8" in height with a length of approximately 12 feet. They require fire department apparatus slowing to 15 mph at the speed hump. 11. RESPONSIBILITY All Personnel shall refer to this policy whenever inquiries are received regarding this subject. 111. POLICY A. Speed bumps are not allowed as a roadway speed control measure. They pose a danger to heavy equipment, such as fire apparatus, and are difficult to see at night, subjecting personnel to potential head, neck and back injuries, while responding to, emergency incidents. Studies have indicated an increase in response time to areas with speed bumps. In some studies the response time was three times that for areas without speed bumps. (05/01/99) 1 V7 -C2 -S11 Sep 05 03 09:44a B. Speed humps are not recommended by the Department, however, speed humps will be allowed if all traffic mitigation procedures have proven ineffective in controlling vehicular traffic, including: Traffic engineering improvements 2. Increased signage 3. Increased law enforcement 4. Circulation of a petition by the City or County Public Works agency, receiving approval from at least 75% of the residents fronting the roadway in question, supporting the installation of speed humps. C. Speed humps may be allowed under the followinq conditions: Presentation of documentation to the Fire Prevention Division, Water, Subdivision and Access Unit, by Public Works, documenting the outcome of efforts made by law enforcement agencies to control traffic, how long they were able to monitor traffic conditions, and the outcome. a. Speed humps shall not be installed on streets with grades greater than 5 percent. b. Speed humps shall not be installed within 100 feet of any intersection. C. Speed humps shall not be installed within 25 feet of either side of a fire hydrant. d. Speed humps shall not be ins*lled in the area in front of any building that might obstruct ladder truck or emergency vehicle operations. e. Speed humps shall be clearly marked with high visible pavement marking, striping and signage, per Department of Public Works Standards. Speed humps shall not be impacts an area servicing residential units. located on a thoroughfare which more than seventy five homes or (05101/99) 2 V7 -C2 -S11 p.3 Sep 05 03 09:44a D. All plans for the installation of speed humps shall be reviewed and approved by the Water, Subdivision, and Access Unit, Fire Prevention Division. Operations Bureau personnel shall be consulted for their recommendation. E. Approved speed humps shall be visibly marked, and the area shall be properly posted to warn of their installation. F. Once speed humps are installed, the local fire station shall be notified of their location. p.4 G. When setting requirements for Regional Planning or Community Development tract maps, the Water, Subdivision and Access Unit shall ensure that requirements restrict the installation of speed bumps and speed humps. (05/01/99) 3 V7 -C2 -S11 10-24-2003 09:37am From -LA CO FIRE DEPT 323 890 9783 T-677 P_004/004 F-343 County of Los Angeles Fire Department Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Rd., Commerce, CA 90040 323-890-4243 Speed Hump Information Sheet The Fire Department does not support the installation of Speed Humps. Speed Humps delay Fire Department responses. Speed Humps cause injuries to Firefighters. Speed Humps cause damage to heavy Fire Department Vehicles. Please consider the following before you sign a petition to install a hump or similar device. • Studies show each speed hump will cause a 7-10 second delay in the Fire Department's arrival time. Delays, from Speed Humps, potentially impacts the survival rate of critically ill patients, ;suffering from medical emergencies such as heart attack, drowning, choking, and trauma. They also potentially reduce one's chance of being rescued during a structure fire. In a 1997 Boulder, Colorado study, on Speed Humps, analyst R. Bowman concluded at least TEN people would die from delayed responses for every ONE fatality prevented by traffic calming (Speed Hump). • Speed Humps cause further injury to certain patients transported by ambulances. Patients with chronic spinal problems report that speed humps aggravate their condition causing increased pain and further injury. In a memorandum to the City of Boulder, Special Transit, which serves 3,000 elderly disabled passengers, urged the City to consider other methods of to traffic calming that do not include physical barriers (speed humps). Americans with Disabilities (ADA) oppose speed humps for this reason_ Spinal injuries, from Speed Humps, documented in the Journal of Accidents & Emergenci Medicine, July 1996, David Bowrey, Rhys Thomas, Rubert Evans, ..Peter Richmond • Speed humps and similar measures cause injuries to Firefighters and damage to Fire Department vehicles. Failure to slow down, while crossing speed humps has injured Firefighters and damaged Fire apparatus. • The effect of speed humps on adjacent structures is not fully understood. Houses close to speed humps are subjected to ground vibrations that can cause damage to underground pipes and foundations. Jonathan Leake, "Road humps can damage houses", Sunday Times, Home news (Dec. 28-'97) BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP OFFICE MEMORANDUM r TO: Carl.K. Newton CC: Linda A. Burrows FROM: Adam N. Englander, FILE NO. 02012-0340 DATE: August 6, 2003 RE: Santa Clarita Traffic Calming Measures and Equal Protection Concerns _ Introduction Many municipalities have adopted traffic "calming" measures, designed to reduce vehicle speeds and increase safety. One of the most prevalent forms of traffic calming is the use of speed humps. We have been asked to research whether the installation of speed humps by the City of Santa Clarita (City) and paid for by neighborhood residents would result in increased liability for the City. Question Presented Would the City be subject to increased liability or an equal protection challenge if the City implemented a program in which it installed traffic calming measures in certain neighborhoods paid for by private residents? BriefAnswer Although the City probably would not face increased liability simply based upon installing speed humps, the fact that the installation of speed humps would be only in certain areas may result in the appearance of inequality. Although neighborhood residents would pay for the program, installation by the City may appear to benefit only those who had the means to pay for the service. Those who could not afford the program may claim they have a fundamental right to "safety," and seek the City to provide a system in which every neighborhood has the opportunity to enjoy the benefit of speed humps. Analvsis Traffic Calming Measures and Speed Humps Traffic control measures that involve a physical addition or alteration to roads are viewed as either an official traffic control device or a roadway design feature. Vehicle Code § 440 states that an official traffic control device is "any sign, signal, marking or device... plated or erected LA =130409 Q Carl K. Newton August 6, 2003 Page 2 by authority of a public body of official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed humps, speed bumps, or other roadway design features." Speed humps are not `official traffic control devices" under Vehicle Code § 440. Instead, they are categorized as "other roadway design features." However, cities may install speed humps under their authority to construct and maintain public streets within their jurisdiction pursuant to the city's constitutional police power.I Although there do not appear to be any precedential cases on the issue of whether cities face increased liability for speed hump installation, conclusions from research and discussions in transportation circles seem to fall on both sides.2 However, when cities pursue the installation of speed humps, cities usually (1) base the design and locations on recognized engineering standards, as approved by a traffic engineer, to assure "design immunity," (2) ensure that the circulation element of the City's general plan does not conflict with the speed hump program, (3) provide that the speed humps are constructed, sited and managed in accordance with the rules and standards contained in the program approved by ordinance of city council, and (4) ensure that the approval of speed humps is done in compliance with CEQA. Equal Protection The issue of equal protection presents what could be a much larger issue for litigation. The proposed plan to have private residents pay the City money to be used for the construction of speed humps in the residents' specific neighborhoods may present problems. Although the City would not be paying for the installation, the City's implementation of the program raises equal protection questions. Because there does not appear to be case law involving safety as a fundamental interest, an examination of education as a fundamental interest was made to see if there existed any analogous arguments. In the Serrano case,3 the court evaluated the issue of California's public school financing system for elementary and secondary schools. The court held that school districts, which are funded by local property taxes, do not provide equal educational opportunities, even with the addition of state money used to temper the difference. The inequalities based upon the amount a City of Walnut Creek v. Silveira (1957) 47 Cal.2d 804, 812. t "Traffic Calming: Debunking the Myths," Transportation Alternatives Magazine, Summer 2000, p. 2; `:A Study on Speed Humps," Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University. ' Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 728. LA #130409 v2 Carl K. Newton August 6, 2003 Page 3 school district could spend per pupil was viewed as a violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution. 3 However, the U.S. Supreme Court held otherwise under the federal Constitution.' In the Rodriguez case, the Court held that education was not a fundamental interest entitled to strict scrutiny. In Serrano, the California court stated that "[B]ecause it establishes and perpetuates a classification based upon district wealth which affects the fundamental interest of education, [it] must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny in determining whether it complies with our state equal protection provisions."6 Based upon preliminary research, there do not appear to be any cases or opinions that establish public safety to be a fundamental interest entitling it to strict scrutiny. If there was, the fact that there would be a classification based upon neighborhood wealth, with those who can afford the speed humps allegedly being provided greater "safety," may subject the City to equal protection litigation. Alternative Solution Instead of having the City construct the speed humps and use private funds to pay for them, an alternative solution may be for the City to establish guidelines for the construction of speed humps throughout the City. After the residents pooled money, they could hire private contractors to construct the speed humps based on the City's guidelines and permitting requirements.7 This approach would be more likely to keep the City out of an equal protection challenge. There does not appear to be case law or Attorney General opinions regarding the issue of speed humps. The City's police power would seem to allow citizens to provide increased safety for their streets. In this situation, the City's capacity simply would be to issue encroachment permits and inspect that the speed humps were built to satisfaction. As long as the City is involved in only a permitting capacity, it does not seem likely that a challenge would be upheld alleging the City should be forced to build speed humps in all neighborhoods. Conclusion It appears that the suggested plan might create a program, which could possibly run afoul of the California Constitution's Equal Protection clause. If a court held that safety was a CA Constitution, Article I, § 7 5 San Antonio School Dist. V. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1. 6 Serrano, at 768. 7 Any permitting process should set forth the exact specifications and spacing requirements necessary to ensure uniformity throughout the City. LA #136409 v2 Carl K. Newton August 6, 2003 Page 4 fundamental interest, then there may be an argument that there exists a disparity based upon wealth. In the alternative, the City could permit the construction of speed humps through the implementation of universal standards and a permitting process, and the residents would conduct the installation. Please let me know if you would like any further assistance with this issue. LA #130409 v2