Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1546Resolution No. 1546 (Amending or Repealing Resolutions) Repealed by Resolution No. 1804 RESOLUTION NO. IS</~ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, enacting and adopting a "Neighborhood Traffic Control Program" to better respond to neighborhood traffic control problems. WHEREAS, various residential neighborhoods within the City of Kent continue to experience problems involving traffic volumes and traffic speeds; and WHEREAS, these traffic problems can pose a threat to the health and safety of the neighborhood residents as well as adversely impact the neighborhood's residential character; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have recognized the need to develop new and creative solutions to address these traffic problems to better respond to the needs of these communities; and WHEREAS, staff has been directed to undertake review of these neighborhood traffic problems and to research and develop solutions to more adequately address these neighborhood traffic problems; and WHEREAS, staff has completed extensive research on neighborhood traffic control programs as they have been addressed in other communities in Washington State, in the United States, and in Europe; and Neighborhood Traffic Control Program WHEREAS, staff has similarly researched programs and solutions offered by maJor transportation and traffic institutions in the United States and Europe; and WHEREAS, as a result of this research, staff has developed a "Neighborhood Traffic Control Program" intended to address neighborhood traffic concerns as they develop in the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review this "Neighborhood Traffic Control Program" and the public has had an opportunity to comment on the plan at the first Public Works Committee meeting in June, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. There is hereby adopted the "Neighborhood Traffic Control Program" of the City of Kent. This program was designed, with extensive citizen involvement, to focus on traffic volume and traffic speeds to the extent they negatively impact neighborhood environments. This is a phased program that will allow citizens to identify problems and solutions specific to their neighborhoods. The program will be phased in order to address the community's needs and identify the appropriate solution. If necessary, potential solutions may involve various speed control or traffic calming devices, including the construction of physical structures to reduce volumes and speeds. Finally, the program will also provide for ongoing periodic evaluation of the solutions as implemented and will also include follow-up surveys to determine the neighborhood's satisfaction with the solutions developed. SECTION 2. A copy of the "Neighborhood Traffic Control Program" is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" to this resolution. Further, the City Clerk of the City of Kent shall keep a copy ofthis program on file for review. 2 Neighborhood Traffic Control Program SECTION 3. -Severability If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _k_ day of r:J-u./0 , 1999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _b__ day of __ D.J.I"-(L ....... J.........,0tio---_, 1999. ATTEST: BRENDA JA:COBER, CITY CLERK, 1)€ PCf 7'( J)o.VJI)A SwALcJ APPROVED AS TO FORM: I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Resolution No. /5£16 passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the ___k__ day of ----=J~t<....c.o£'40-------' 1999. P·\Civii\Resolution\NeighborhoodTrafficControl.do~ j)!kta1ac-~ r.-(SEAL) BRENDA JAC08ER, CITY CLEltK1 -:J)(),.:J/JA S 0Aw J:1€Ptf!1( 3 Neighborhood Traffic Control Program NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Neighborhood Traffic Control Program is designed to support legally required statewide and local. comprehensive transportation planning policies and goals. The statutory authority for our local transportation policy is found in RCW 36.70A, the state Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act (GMA) was passed by the legislature in 1990 ~o address problems associated with low- density growth patterns in Washington: · • people moving to the region were buying property in outlying areas where land rents and housing costs are less expensive than in the central city; • these new residents commuted, alone and by car, to work in or near the central city where the best employment opporttmities were located; • with more cars on the road and inadequate transportation services in place to respond to the increase in travel demand, traffic congestion increased; • increased congestion contributed to a decline in air quality along with its attendant environmental and community health concerns. The GMA requires local governments to accommodate anticipated population growth through strategic land use planning. Each jurisdiction must produce a comprehensive plan that contains elements related .. to land use, transportation, capital facilities, housing and utilities. The GMA requires a direct link between transportation and land use policy in all comprehensive plans. The City Council adopted the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan on April 18, 1995 by Ordinance 3222. The transportation element of the city's comprehensive plan contains five policies related to traffic flow on city roadways. These policies provide the framework for the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program: 1. : Policy TR-4.1-Maximize traffic flow and mobility on arterj.al roa.ds, especially on regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. 2. Policy TR-4.2-Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased traffic and reducing accessibility for the citywide road network. 3. Policy TR-4.3-Balance the dual goals of providing accessibility within the local street system and protecting neighborhoods. Where overflow traffic from the regional system significantly impacts neighborhoods, protect the residential area. 4. Policy TR-4.4-Develop a system of level-of-service standards which promote growth where appropriate and preserve the transportation system where appropriate. 5. Policy TR-4.8-Enhance the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program to include in neighborhoods· a wide range of passive control devices. 1 Level of Service Standards and Neighborhood Traffic Control The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to include action plans for bringing existing. transportation facilities into compliance with established level-of-service (LOS)1 standards. The comprehensive plan must provide for the expansion of transportation facilities to meet future need at established LOS standards. Land use planning must be consi~ent with the transportation action plan; future growth shouldn't cause transportation facilities to fall below established LOS standards. LOS standards can be based on many measures, including traffic congestion. LOS standards for traffic congestion have been developed and revised over the years by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). One ofthe TRB systems uses volume on a road and capacity ofthe r9ad to define a ratio, called a V/C (volume to capacity) ratio, which can be classified by degree of congestion. The classifications2 range from A (the best) to F (the worst). Roads with lower levels of congestion are given higher level of service designations. Roads with higher levels of congestion are given lower level of service designations. The LOS standards developed for Kent are based on volume to capacity ratios that are consistent with those developed for the King County region. There are separate standards for different transportation modes, including nonmotorized modes. This is in keeping with the adopted commute trip reduction ordinance, air quality legislation, and policies that support single occupancy vehicle reductions. For the purposes of this report, the LOS discussion will focus on automobile traffic. In developing the Kent LOS standard, 22 subareas of the city were defined (see exhibit A). LOS standards were determined by estimating volume to capacity (VIC) ratios based on land use designations (see exhibit B). Acceptable V/C ratios are higher (low levels of service) in areas where the land use plan directs intensive growth. Areas designated for lower density land use have lower acceptable V/C ratios (high levels of service). It was assumed that high levels of congestion .(low LOS) are acceptable in the Central Business District and other major activity centers, but not in residential or low-density commercial areas where lower V/C ratios (high LOS) were required. Table 1.1 shows the V/C ratios 3associated with each LOS in.the transportation element of Kent's comprehensive plan. Table 1.1 LOS. DEFINITION ~LOS:l;:·.:~;c-=-:.~~ :.:::.::~;~~:VlC.RATiQ: ''"'-~~:-':';: :::.~:s; A 0.01-0.60 B 0.61-0.70 c 0.71-0.80 D 0.81-0.90 E 0.91-0.98 F 0.99 + 1 Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative estimate of the performance efficiency of transpOrtation facilities in a community. 2 LOS A -low volume, high speeds, no delay; LOS B -stable flow with reasonable freedom to select speed; LOS C -stable flow, but speed and maneuverability are affected by the presence of others; LOS D-speed and maneuverability are severely restricted, small additions to traffic flow generally will cause operational problems; LOS E -operating conditions at or near the capacity of the roadway, low speeds, freedom to maneuver is extremely difficult; LOS F -forced flow operation at very low speeds, operations are characterized by stop and go traffic. 3 Sum of entering automobile volume on road divided by the sum of automobile lane capacity on the road 2 Table 1.2 shows the adopted levels of service for the 22 traffic zones in Kent. Table 1.2 ZONE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS ZONE LAND USE TYPE LAND USE CATEGORY ESTIMATED V /C LOS WITH TIP 1 CBD Urban Activity Center < 0.8 c 2 Industrial Urban <0.7 B 3 Industrial Urban > 0.7 c 4 Industrial Urban 0.7 B 5 Industrial Urban <0.7 B 6 :rviDR Urban > 0.8 D 7 Agricultural Rural <0.7 R 8 .MDR/Commercial Urban > 0.8 D 9 Commercial/Rec./HDR Urban < 0.7 B 10 CBD Urban Activity Center < 0.8 c 11 .MDR Urban > 0.8 D 12 Industrial/Comm!HDR Urban > 0.7 c 13 :rviDR Urban <0.7 B 14 Commercial/HDR Urban Activity Center <0.7 B 15 AG/Park!Ind. Rural < 0.8 c 16 :rviDR Urban :< 0.7 B 17 Agricultural Rural < 0.7 B 18 Agricultural/Park Rural <0.7 B 19 :rviDR Urban < 0.7 B 20 LDR Rural <0.7 B 21 LDR Rural < 0.7 B 22 LDR Rural < 0.7 B The Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) deals with two problem areas: volume control and speed control. Typically, the problems are related. Drivers attempting to save time will cut through a neighborhood to avoid congestion on certain arterials or to avoid inconvenient traffic control devices. They will also drive at speeds that exceed the posted limits in order make it through the neighborhood quickly. Consequently, some of the traffic calming devices employed to address volume control are very similar to those that address speed control. They are designed to either force drivers to slow down (thereby eliminating the time saving incentive for using the street as a cut through), or to prevent them from entering a particular street section altogether. Both the volume control and speed control aspects of the program are comprised of two phases: the first employs a variety of passive control devices; the second, physical alterations to the street section. Criteria have been developed to delineate the threshold conditions that warrant the use of various traffic calming devices. The criteria was designed to support and maintain level of service standards for automobile traffic on neighborhood-residential streets as determined by the transportation element of the city's comprehensive plan. Table 1.3 shows the criteria for the Neighborhood Traffic-Volume Control program. 3 Table 1.3 VOLUME CONTROL PROGRAM CRITERIA NTCP VOLUME CONTROL Street or Roadway RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Classification STREET COLLECTOR COLLECTOR ARTERIAL Design Capacity (ADT) 1,000 Vehicles 3,500 Vehicles 5,000 Vehicles Average Daily Traffic Design Speed (MPH) 25MPH 30MPH 35MPH Number of Lanes TWO TWO THREE Road Width 28-32 Feet 36 Feet 36 Feet Parking Strip ( ), Lane (8) 12-16 (8) Feet (8) 10-10 (8) Feet 12-12-12 Feet Widths On Street Parking Permitted YES YES NO CAR4 Form Required YES YES YES Traffic Study Reguired YES YES YES VOLUME CONTROL PHASE 1 OPTIONS Neighborhood Support 70%and 70% 70%and 70% 70%and 70% Needed Parking Variants YES YES NO Turn Prohibition Sig:I!_s YES YES YES Follow Up Traffic Study YES YES NO One Way Streets and Signs YES YES YES Follow Up Traffic Study YES YES YES Police Enforcement YES YES YES Follow Up Traffic Study YES YES YES Phase 1 Time Frame 1 YEAR 1 YEAR 1 YEAR VOLUME CONTROL PHASE 2 OPTIONS V/C >Zone LOS V /C > Zone LOS and and V/C >Zone LOS Threshold Volumes Non-local Traffic 2: Non-local Traffic 2: .20 ADT .20 ADT Street Section Features Vertical curb, Gutter Vertical curb, Gutter Vertical curb, Gutter Neighborhood Support 70%and 70% 70%and 70% 70%and 70% Needed Forced Tum Channelization YES YES YES Entry, Exit Chokers YES NO NO Diagonal Diverter YES NO NO Median Barriers YES YES YES 4 Citizen's Action Request Form 4 Neighborhood Traffic Volume Control Program Criteria Table Volume Control Section The first row of table 1.3 on page 4 identifies the table section (NTCP Volume Control). Row two (2) identifies the three types of street or roadway .. classifications the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) is responsible for: residential (or residential access) streets, residential collectors and residential collector arterials. Row three (3) identifies the average daily traffic the road is estimated to carry in tenns of the actual number of cars or trucks traveling along the road on a daily basis. Row four (4) identifies speed limit for the road. Row five (5) identifies the number of driving lanes on the road. Residential collector arterials also have a center lane for making left turns. Row six (6) identifies the total width of the road in feet. Row seven (7) identifies the width of the parking strips on the road in feet, as well as the width of the driving lanes in feet. The parking lane widths are in parenthesis. Row eight (8) states whether parl¢lg is allowed on the road. Parking is not allowed on residential collector arterials. Row nine (9) states whether or not a Citizen's Action Request is required from the neighborhoo~. A Citizen's Action Request is a form that is camp leted by a neighborhood resident, which requests traffic calming services from the city. Row ten ( 1 0) identifies whether or ~ot a formal traffic study will be done by the city. Volume Control Phase 1 Options Section Row eleven (11) identifies the table section (Volume Control Phase 1 Options) Row twelve (12) identifies the ~evel of neighborhood support needed (as determined by ballot or petition) before the city takes a specific course of action among Phase 1 alternatives. (70% and 70% means that seventy percent of the residents plus seventy percent of the property owners in a neighborhood need to approve ofthe city's plan before it is implemented. Row thirteen (13) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Parking variants are simply different methods for neighborhood residents to park their vehicles on the street section. Parking areas create narrower roadways and increased activity leading to increased attention by drivers. Row fourteen (14) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A tum prohibition sign (no left tum, no right turn) is a regulatory measure subject to police enforcement. 5 Row fifteen (15) identifies whether or not a formal traffic study to evaluate the interim results of the selected alternative will be done by the city. Row sixteen (16) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A one-way street designation (along with the appropriate signing) is a regulatory measure subject to police enforcement. It restricts entry/exits to/from nei~borhoods. One way street patterns. Row seventeen (17) identifies whether or not a traffic study to evaluate the interim results of the selected alternative will be conducted by the city. Row eighteen (18) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Police enforcement is extensive traffic enforcement, "emphasis patrols." Row nineteen (19) identifies whether or not a traffic study to evaluate the interim results of the police enforcement alternative will be conducted by the city. Row twenty (20) identifies the length of time it takes to camp lete Phase 1. Volume Control Phase 2 Options Section Row twenty-one (21) identifies the table section 01 o1ume Control Phase 2) Row twenty-two (22) identifies the threshold volumes required for each road classification, after Phase 1 alternatives have been deployed for the period of one year, before the city will consider implementing a Phase 2 option. 0f/C > Zone LOS means that the volume to capacity ratio must exceed the level of service standard for the traffic zone. Non-local Traffic::: .20 ADT means that the volume of non-local traffic traveling the road on a daily basis must equal or exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total traffic volume traveling the road on a daily basis. · Row twenty-three (23) identifies the street section features that are required to make the Phase 2 alternatives viable for each road classification. Vertical curbs will discourage vehicles from driving aro{md a traffic control device. Gutters are necessary to handle storm ·water drainage. Row twenty-four (24) identifies the level of neighborhood support needed (as determined by ballot or petition) before the city takes a specific course of action among Phase 2 alternatives. (70% and 70% means that seventy percent of the residents plus seventy percent of the property owners in a neighborhood . need to approve of the city's plan before it is implemented. Row twenty-five (25) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Aforced turn channelization is a raised curb constructed in the road that prohibits vehicles from executing specific movements at an intersection. Row twenty-six (26) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. An entry-exit choker is a curb extension that creates a barrier to traffic in one direction of a street while permitting traffic in the opposite direction to pass through. Row twenty-seven (27) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A diverter is a barrier placed diagonally across an intersection to force drivers to make a Sharp tum but not allow other movements. 6 Row twenty-eight (28) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not It is appropriate for the road classification. A median is a barrier along the centerline of a roadway to prohibit left turns or cross traffic. Table 1.4 SPEED CONTROL PROGRAM CRITERIA NTCP SPEED CONTROL Street or Roadway RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Classification STREET COLLECTOR COLLECTOR ARTERIAL Design Capacity (AD1) 1,000 Vehicles 3,500 Vehicles 5,000 Vehicles Averag_e Dailv Traffic Design Speed (MPH) 25 :MPH 30 :MPH 35MPH Number ofLanes TWO TWO TIIREE Road Width 28-32 Feet 36 Feet 36 Feet Parking Strip ( ), Lane Widths (8) 16 (8) Feet (8) 10-10 (8) Feet 12-12-12 Feet On Street Parking Permitted YES YES NO CAR Form Required YES YES YES Traffic Study Required YES YES YES SPEED CONTROL PHASE 1 OPTIONS Brush Trims YES YES YES Traffic Safety Campaign YES YES YES Speed Radar Board YES YES YES Neighborhood Speed Watch YES YES YES Parking Variants YES YES NO Follow Up Traffic Study YES YES YES Warning, Guide, and MUTCD, 70% + 70% MUTCD, 70% + 700/o MUTCD, 70%+70% Regulatorv Signing Pavement Markings MUTCD, 70% + 70% MUTCD, 70% + 70% MUTCD, 70% + 70% Rumble Strips YES, 70% + 70% . YES, 70% + 70% YES, 70% + 70% Follow Up Traffic Study YES YES YES Police Enforcement YES YES YES Follow Up Traffic Study YES YES YES Reduce Speed Limit 70%+70%and 70%+70%and 70%+70%and Per RCW ~6.61.415 Council Approval Council Approval Council Approval Follow Up Traffic Studv YES YES YES Phase 1 Time Frame 1 YEAR 1 YEAR 1 YEAR SPEED CONTROL PHASE 2 OPTIONS Threshold Speeds 85% Speed> 35 MPH 85% Speed 10 :MPH> 85% Speed 10 MPH> Speed limit Speed limit Street Section Features Vertical curb, Gutter, Vertical curb, Gutter, Vertical curb, Gutter, Grade<8% Grade<8% Grade <8% Neighborhood Support Needed 70%+70% 70%+70% 70%+70% Entry, Exit, Mid-block Chokers 17 5 foot straightaway 250 foot straightaway NO to mid-block choker to mid-block choker Traffic Circles 175 foot straightaway 250 foot straightaway NO to circle to circle Speed Humps Vertical curb,l75 foot Vertical curb,250 foot NO straightaway to hump straightaway_ to hump Raised Crosswalks 175 foot straightaway 250 foot straightaway NO -to crosswalk to crosswalk Chicanes 175 foot straightaway 250 foot straightaway 300 foot straightaway to first bulb to first bulb to first bulb 7 Table 1.4 shows the criteria for the Neighborhood Traffic-Speed Control program. . . Typically, speed limits are determined by the design of the roadway, the behavior of reasonable and prudent drivers on that roadway, and statutory requirements. The speed limits for Washington state roadways are determined by RCW 46.61.400. They are 25 mi~es per hour on city and town streets, 50 miles per hour on county roads, and 60 miles per hour on st.aie highways. RCW 46.61.415 gives local jurisdictions the ability to increase or decrease the speed limit if an engineering and traffic investigation determines that it is reasonable to do so. Local jurisdictions cannot increase the speed limit to more than 60 miles an hour, or decrease it to less than 20 miles per hour. Speed limit enforcement is largely a function of the local jurisdiction's customs and practices. Although the law assesses fines for drivers who exceed the posted speed limit by as little as one mile per hour, the custom of the local enforcement authority may be to write tickets only if the driver exceeds some predetermined threshold speed. For example, the posted sp·eed limit is 25 miles per hour, but the local policy is to write tickets only if the driver exceeds the posted speed limit by 10 miles per hour or more. Subsequently, the NTCP criteria developed to delineate threshold speed conditions that warrant the use of Phase 2 traffic control devices are based on local enforcement practices. Neighborhood Traffic Speed Control Program Criteria Ttfble Speed Control Section The first row of table 1.3 on page 4 identifies the table section (NTCP Speed Control). Row two (2) identi~es the three types of street or roadway classifications the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) is responsible for: residential (or residential access) streets, residential collectors and residential collector arterials. Row three (3) identifies the average daily traffic the road is estimated tQ carry in terms of the actual number of cars or trucks traveling along the road on a daily basis. Row four ( 4) identifies speed limit for the road. Row five (5) identifies the number of driving lanes on the road. Residential collector arterials also have a center lane for making left turns. Row six (6) identifies the total width of the road in feet. Row seven (7) identifies the width of the parking strips on the road in feet, as well as the width of the driving lanes in feet. The parking lane widths are in parenthesis. Row eight (8) states whether parking is allowed on the road. Parking is not allowed on residential collector arterials. Row nine (9) states whether or not a Citizen's Action Request is required from the nei~borhood. A Citizen's Action Request is a form that is completed by a neighborhood resident, which requests traffic calming services from the city. Row ten (10) identifies whether or not a formal traffic study will be done by the city. 8 Speed Control Phase 1 Options Section Row eleven (11) identifies the table section (Speed Control Phase 1 Options) Row twelve (12) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A brush trim involves the clearing away of bushes, branches or other vegetation that may be creating a sight distance, safety hazard for vehicles attempting to enter onto a road Row thirteen (13) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A traffic safety campaign involves educating neighborhood residents via newsletters, brochures and public meetings about behaviors that improve safety and safety awareness. Row fourteen (14) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. The speed radar board is a reader board that shows approaching motorists the posted speed limit while displaying that motorist's actual speed. Row fifteen (15) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. The neighborhood speed watch involves local residents who use radar equipment to record vehicle speeds. A letter is then written to the registered owners of vehicles that were exceeding the speed limit asking them to obey the posted speed limits. Row sixteen ( 16) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Parking variants are simply different metho~ for neighborhood residents to park their vehicles on the street section. Parking areas create narrower roadways and increased activity leading to increased attention by drivers. Row seventeen (17) identifies whether or not a traffic study to evaluate the interim results of the selected alternative will be conducted by the city. Row eighteen· (18) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and wh~ther or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Warning, guide and regulatory signing is the posting of signs that inform motorists about desired or required driver behavior. The threshold criteria for this option are also identified: MUTCD is the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It is the standard used throughout the country for the design and deployment of traffic control devices. 70% + 70% is the level of neighborhood support needed (as determined by ballot or petition) before the city implements this option. Row nineteen (19) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Pavement markings are painted legends on the roadway to alert drivers of special conditions. The threshold criteria for this option are also identified: MUTCD is the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It is the standard used throughout the country for the design and deployment of traffic control devices. 70% + 70% is the level of neighborhood support needed (as determined by ballot or petition) before the city implements this option. Row twenty (20) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Rumble strips are raised buttons on the road, which serve to alert motorists to a special condition. 70% + 70% is the level of neighborhood support needed (as determined by ballot or petition) before the city implements this option. Row twenty-one (21) identifies whether or not a traffic study to evaluate the interim results of the selected alternative will be conducted by the city. 9 Row twenty-two (22) identifies a Phase 1 option and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Police enforcement is extensive traffic enforcement, "emphasis patrols." Row twenty-three (23) identifies whether or not a traffic study to evaluate the interim results of the selected alternative will be conducted by the city. Row twenty-four (24) identifies a Phase 1 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Reduce the speed limit involves legally lowering the maximum speed allowed on a road. 70% and 70% is the level of neighborhood support needed (as determined by ballot or petition) before the city takes the specific course of action. This option would also require council approval Row twenty-five (25) identifies whether or not a traffic study to evaluate the interim results of the selected alternative will be conducted by the city. Row twenty-six (26) identifies the length of time it takes to complete Phase 1. Speed Control Phase 2 Options Section Row twenty-seven (27) identifies the table section (Speed Control Phase 2 Options) Row twenty-eight (28) identifies the threshold speeds required for each road classification, after Phase 1 alternatives have been deployed for the period of one year, before the city will consider implementing a Phase 2 option. For reside~ial streets, the 85th percentile vehicle speed should exceed 35 miles per hour. For residential collectors and residential collector arterials, the 85th percentile speed should be greater than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. The 85th percentile speed is the average speed at which 85% of the vehicles are traveling on a particular roadway. The 85th percentile speed is typically used to determine the appropriate speed limit for a roadway. · Row twenty-nine (29) identifies the street section features that are required to make the Phase 2 alternatives viable for eac~ road classification. Vertical curbs will discourage vehicles from driving around a traffic control device. Gutters are necessary to handle storm water drainage. Grades·< 8% means that the slope of the roadway should be less than 8%. Row thirty (30) identifies the level of neighborhood support needed (as determined by ballot or petition) before the city takes a specific course of action among Phase 2 alternatives. 70% and 70% means that seventy percent of the. residents plus seventy percent of the property owners in a neighborhood need to approve ofthe city's plan before it is implemented. Row thirty-one (31) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. An entry-exit, mid-block choker is a curb extension that creates a barrier to traffic in one direction of a street while permitting traffic in the opposite direction to pass through. The straightaway distance requirements are guidelines found in the MUTCD. They relate to the placement of advan.ce warning signs informing drivers of the traffic control device. The distances are required in order for the driver to perceive the warning sign, identify what it means, decide what they need to do, and then decelerate to the desired speed needed to safely negotiate the traffic control device. Row thirty-two (32) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A traffic circle is a raised island constructed in the roadway intersection that forces traffic into circular maneuvers. 10 Row thirty-three (33) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A speed hump is a raised and curved section of pavement across the roadway. Row thirty-four (34) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. A raised crosswalk is a crosswalk raised above and across the roadway pavement. Row thirty-five (35) identifies a Phase 2 alternative and whether or not it is appropriate for the road classification. Chicanes are curbed islands protruding into the roadway, leaving a single lane or narrow two-lane gap. 11 Neighborhood Traffic Control Program Administrative Process CITIZEN REQUEST NTCP BROCHURE AND CAR FORM: SENT CAR FORM: RECEIVED DATA COLLECIION AND FIELD REVIEW ANALYSIS 6-8 WEEKS DEVELOP PHASE 1 TRAFFIC llviPROVEMENT PLAN AND SURVEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPLEMENT PHASE 1 PLAN AND MONITOR EFFECTIVENESS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR MONITOR AFTER 1 YEAR FOR LONG TER.J.\1 EFFECTS DEVELOP PHASE 2 AND SURVEY NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IMPLEMENT PHASE 2 AND MONITOR EFFECTIVENESS 6 MONTH REVIEW AND NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REVISE, REMOVE OR RETAIN PERMANENTLY MONITOR AFTER 1 YEAR FOR LONG TERM EFFECTS 12 EXHIBIT A CITY OF KENT SUB-AREA TRAFFIC ZONE MAP 13 .. 17 \ \, ' ' ' ' CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NORTH • SCALE: 1 "=4000' LEGEND I I UNT CITY LIWITS ------------· DNT TIW'FIC ANALYSIS ZONE POTENTIAL ANNEXATION BOUNDARY lNia IIAI' U l,.l[HIIfO liS AN JIO II GIUII'MI( "'fP'"U[NlAfiON dltll RHO IS Mal Ill U.GIIl DOCUit[ML • TRAFFIC ZONES FIGURE 9.2 EXHIBITB CITY OF KENT LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP 14 CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NORTH ~ SCALE: 1"=4000' HUS MA, U INIEN0£0 AS AN AID IN t;IIAPHIC llfl"fiUtNlflllllll DNLT fiND U NOT A LfCAl DDtllfi[Nl . ..LE.G£IDl POTI!NTIAl ANNEUTION ARIA CITY LU•U!S ~ AGRICULTURAL .. OPl:N SrAC£ ~ COUt.IU~ITY fACILITY SINGLE f..\MILY RESIDENTIAL c=:J if-I OJIIE L._,IT•.,CtiE W.O:IWUW c=:J 8f· :1 THRH t:IHT3/ACRt W.U:IWUW c=:J !lf-8 SIX USITS1ACRE MAJmHIW c=:J Sf-11 EIGHT L•I'41TS 'ACRE WAXI~LW ML'I.'I'IfAMILY RESIDENTIAL c:=J LOW DENSITY WliLTirANILY f(j:;fJ.jJ t.tEnH;W DfNSITY ~IULTirANILT Di!D t.IOliiLK HOME f>A.JII\ COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE IIlliiiilll -lfil!llllll ~ §3 cowwt:RCLAL. CITI" CENTER WilED U~E Wll'ED, LIW11£0 Wl'LTIPAWILY NEI~HIII)RHOOP S[R\"lCII.S INDUSTRIAL -INOilliTRIAL 11111!111 WANllfACTU~II'iC CENTER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS rzz2] l'H8AN RESIOUITIAL I UHIT,'ACHI:: [=:::=J Uf(IIAH RESIDENTIAL 4-ll UNIT:S, A:RE ~ l"II(I/\N RESIDENTIAL 12 .. lli'UTli AIR£ REVISED JUNE 1997 R LAND USE PLAN MAP FIGURE 4.7 APPENDIX 1 ILLUSTRATIONS OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 15 SPEED RADAR BOARD ----c::3 N (.f) c..-:_ ,. ::::u ---u • Ul 3:.:: rrl ---! PI 0 CHICANES/PARKING VARIANTS ........... ~ ...... ,...~-.,., ...... , .. ,.~!.I~X'..,;..:..SO.~·· . ·•. ·J SIGNS/MARKINGS/RUMBLE STRIPS .,:;· SPEED LIMIT POLICE ENFORCEMENT .. · ....... ·,: ·.,,: ~ ... :i :., ·. t ..... ~ . .. .. ·;,: ' ·::: · .. :. ; .. ·.;· · .. :...,;,. ·.::.: .. ,· ... . -~ :' .. . . ~ .. : . .. · .. .. . . .. . . . ..... . · .. ·.:·= :.: . . · .... •.··.·· .. . ~.' ~>"!' ~-= .•. ·: ....... . ENTRY/EXIT/MID-BLOCK CHOKERS I -~ J ~ ~ TRAFFIC CIRCLES SPEED HUMPS :·.-. ':"'" .· \·<' •'•. ~· : .• ·~· .:.• .. FORCED TURN CHANNELIZATION DIAGONAL DIVERTER \,'. ','• .. ~ ........ ..... ··.·'; DIVERTER MEDIAN BARRIER APPENDIX2 SUMMARY RESULTS OF TRAFFIC CALMING STUDIES IN ENGLAND, UK 16 TABLE 1. MEASURES USED IN THE CASE STUDIES TYPES OF MEASURES Town Centre Rural Residential 20mph Zones 1' 2 39,40,41,42.43,44,45,47 Chicanes 2,4,10 18, 20.26, 29,32,35 39,40,46,51,55.57,62.64, 66.69, 76,80.82.83 Cycle Measures: 4 20.27,34 45,46,52,53.56.61.63. 78. Slips. Lanes, 'Bypasses· 83, 85 Environmental 1, 2. 3, 5. 9.13 25. 26,29.35 40,53, 54,55, 65, 75, 77,78 Improvement Gateways 1' 13 I 15' 16' 17' 18' 21 ' 23' 26' I 39. s·, 29. 30,32.37,38 Junction Priority Changes 1' 7 I 22 I 42, 57, 62, 75, 77, 83 Jundion Treatments: I 11 '12 I 17, 22. 25 39, 41, 43, 48, 49, 53. 64, 65. Tables. Entry/Exit 68. 78 Mini-Roundabouts 3.4.11 '12 I 22. 24. 25. 26. 28. 31.36 . 43. 54. 55, 58, 63. 65. 66, Narrowings: 1, 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 10.13 14, 15. 18. 19, 20. 21, 22. 39. 40, 42. 43. 44, 45.49,52, Build outs. Pinch·points, 23. 24. 26.27. 28, 29. 30. 53. 55.56, 57,58. 62,63,64. Reiu9es 32.34.35 66, 67. 68. 69. 70, 75, 76', 77, 78,80.85 Parking: 2, 5. 8 24. 25. 29 39. 40,43.52, 53, 55,57, 64, Protected, Restrictions . 66. 69, 83 Road Closures I 1 .I 26 I 39,42.61.63. 73.78 I Road Humps: 1, 2. 3. :. 6. 7, 8. 9, ~0. 12 19, 22. 24, 25. ~8. 31. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 46. 4T 48, Flat Too. Rounc Too. 35. 36 49, :o. 53. 54, 56, 57, 58. 59. One-Way, Two-Way, Plateaus 62.63, 65. 67. 68, 71, 73, 74, Saeed Tables 75. 76, 77. 78, 80. 81, 84.85 I I I Rumble Strips: ~8. 23. 32.33.37 56, 60. 70. 71, 72. 76,80.84 I . 'Thwmos'. Mini-1-:'":T:ps i i Speed Cameras I I i7 I Speed Cushions I I 44, 45,56, 70 I -Surface Treatments: 1 '13 I 15,21.23,24,29,38 52, 78 Colour. Texture Visual Effects: 13 15, 16, 18, 19, 21' 27, 30, 43,52,56,65,69,80,83 Signs. Markings, Planting 32. 34, 38 'No Humps': 4, 13 14, 15. 17, 18, 21. 26, 27, 51,52,55, 56,61,66,69, 70. Successful schemes 29.30,32.34,38 82 --:>-_, - :I " " i! 11 QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE CASE STUDIES Table 2.1 Town Centre Case Studies Case ! Traffic Speed Accidents Study Location I volume mph piapa Cost Comments (See Note 1 below) Belore After Be lore Alter Bel ore Alter 1 West Sussex - -35 15 3 0 £2.3m 20 mph zone. Unked with redevelopment and town Horsham relief road. Very expensive environmental works. Cart ax Considerable accident and speed reduct:on. 2 Northamptonshire 2540 2080 24 17 3.7 2 £230k 20 mch zone (temc). Flat top humps, pinch points. Rush den chicanes. Expensive environmentally. Speed crop High Street significant, considerable (potential) accident drop. 3 Hertfordshire 18800 16500 26 20 15 8 t:1.2m Major enhancement Narrowmg, road humps. Borehamwood Developer funding. Relatively expensive, significant Shenley Road speed reduction. considerable accident reduction. 4 Camcridgesh1re 107CQ 89CO 38 32 19 .. £130k Mini roundacouts. traffic islands. chicanes.cyc:e :=aron Socon lanes. Reasonable cost. Significant speed recuc::on. considerable accident reduc::on. ::; ::~rnwall 9CCO 7900 I 32 17 I 5 ; ~30k ?.oao humps. narrow:ng, ::;rmectec Parking. i Sa:tasn I Environmental treatment. Re:aovely expensive. =ore Street I Considerable s:::~eed and potential acc:dent crcc. 6 Devon 18CO 4C{JQ 23 ·-II 0.25 G.25 S3k Como1nec narrowing w1th flat :op hump. Ceve!ooer Sarnstaple financed. Low cost wim consiceraole soeea crco. iuly Street Swa traffic cue to snort ter."l1 car park. 7 :=ssex I 29 25 29 ? ::;81k Junc::on alterat:ons. narrcw1ng. flat too humcs. Soutnenc OCl Sea I Pelicans. Relat:vely expensNe. Cons1aerac1e Manne Parace ac::::aent anc pecesman 1n1ur/ crco. Mere ex:ensive consultation may have heloed. 8 Kent 30CG 5CCO -1.3 0.7 Si8k I Eany roac humo scheme on cual carriageway. Gillingnam I Relaovely exoens:ve out cons1deraole acc:cem T wycall Green i reaucnon. 9 Kent BCCO ~coo 35 25 2 0 Si8.5i<. Hign quality s1ngle way ramcs used to slow :raific Rccnester anc deter rat runn10g. Reas:::naole cost w1th cons:cer- 'lines Lane acle aco10ent and soeed recuc::on. 10 ls:e ci Wignt 350 3'~ ·~ ~a <::~ i8 0 0 ~i4.5i<. ?.inc:1 po:nts o:us.:1umoec C:l1cane. i=ieasonac1e ::est riyce sc~eme w:t~ c::Jns:aerao1e recucnon 1n soee-:s ;n a No~:1 Walk r'.:!c;ea!lonal area well ~..:sec Jy pecestnans. '. Warw:cksh1re 156CO ~ 7500 20 3 ~ S35k i'v11n1 roundacouts on soeec :aoles. Exoens1ve. L:am1ngron Sea Soec:al paving ~ad tc oe reolaced. Not successful. The ?araae Traffic patterns c;,angec c:..:e to other :ac:ors. •? Warw1cksrwe I 7~00 5400 I 50 25 2 0 I ~59k ria1sed 1uncnon ::Jius several Rat too humps. Cieiar:vely ·-I ::lug::Jy exoens;ve out ccns1ceraole soeec anc ac::::cenr ,.J..sntawn Roac I \ l recuct:on. 13 Ciampsn1re NYA NV' ''"' NYA S480k DOT demonstranon pro1ect. Detrunked 'h:gn street' Peterstield location. Narrow1ng, extensive environmental works. Dragon Street lntens:ve consultaoon. Expensive. Note 1. Comparative subjective comments are given regarding cost and effectiveness. These are based on the fol· lowing indicative criteria which may differ from individual authorities' own criteria and opinions: COST 't.ow' 'Moderate' 'Reasonable' 'Expensive' Single Measure <£:3,000 £3.001-£10,000 £:10,001 -£20.000 >£20.000 Several Measures <S.SOOO!km ::5.001 -::50.000/km ::50.001 -£100.000/km >£100,000/km EFFECTIVENESS 'Negligible' 'Marginal' 'Significant' 'C4nsiderable' Accidents reduced by <5% 5%-10% 10'o/o -30% >30% Speeds reduced by <2mph 2-5 mph 5-10 mph >10mph 26 I I Table 2.2 Rural Case Studies Case Traffic Speed Accidents Study Location volume mph piapa Cost Comments (See Note 1. p. 27) Before After Before After Before After 14 Somerset 4000 5COO 47 35 1.8 1 £50k VISP scheme. Temporary materials. trial period. Stratton-an-the-Narrowings priority features. Cost moderate with Fosse considerable speed drop. 15 Devon 2000 2000 44 36 0.7 1.5 £9k VISP scheme. Gateway features. traffic islands. Halberton markings and speed roundels. Moderate cost with significant speed drop. 16 Kent 6900 6900 40 38 2.3 2 £ 2.2k VISP low cost scheme involving specially auth- Matfield orised gateway signing. Not particularly effective. 17 Oxford shire 17500 17500 47 41 1.3 1 £i2k Speed camera. Reasonable cost (excludes fines Nuneham income). Significant speed drop. Little effect from Courtenay gateways added later. 18 Hamosh1re I See I case Is t u d y ~.!OOk 140mph zone (300 km road). Comarenens1ve New Forest aoproach to Heritage Area. Ac::::dents and speeds I I i reducea by range of features. 19 Cambnagesh1re 1700 1500 37 27 2.7 0.3 £32k Give way narrowings. senes of round and flat top Gamlingay humps. bus route. Modest cost with cons1aerable accident and speed reduction. 20 Cambncgesh1re 10600 1 1300 47 4i I 5.7 2.7 I ~48k Traffic islands and chicanes w1th 'by-passes· for Fen Ditton I cyclists. Moderate cost w1th cons1aeraole potent1a1 accident reduct1on and s1gnificant speed drop. I 21 Devon 2900 2900 .38 35 I 0.3 0 ~20k Gateway effect w1th central island located c:1 entry Newton Tracey I to village. Reasonable cost but marg1nal soeed crop. 22 Herttorashire 7300 6850 35 24 2.8 1 £400k 3'/, years consultation. Narrow1ng.speed tables. Buntingiord throttle humps. m1nL High quality ennancement. Sxoens1ve. Considerable speed and accicent drop. 23 Herttorosh1re 2000 1800 42 39 I 0.7 0 £i8k :=xoerimental on 60mpn roaa. Narrow1ngs . cast- Old Kneoworth I ellated surfacing. gateways. Moderate cost. Negligible saeea drop. More measures prooosec. 24 Herttorcsnire · 7100 7U)0 i 31 16 2 -~32k ~11n1 rouncaaout. road humcs. :1ar:ow1ng ?elanvely Stanstead Abocts ~ 1) exoens1ve. Speed ana acc1cent orca cons1aeraaie. ::Xoenmenral scneme. replacec cy Case S•ucy 25. 25 Herttorcsnire 17100 7000 31 22 2 -£476k ::Xtens1ve enwonmental works. Reotaces Case Stucy Stansteac Aborts (21 211 Humos replaced by ra~sea taale areas. ::Xoens1ve but considerable speed ana acc1dent ::rca. ' 26 Kent 10000 10000 47 34 "l-~.I 0 £i40k Two pnmary routes 1n village. Enwonmental Sarre works. Gateways. refuges. Chicane. m1n1. c:osure. Expensive but considerable speed ana (potential) acc1dent drop. 27 Kent 9400 9400 60 53 5 2.4 £75k Reduced number of lanes. refuges. cycle lanes. Gravesend 2.5 km. Cost moderate. Significant speed drop and considerable accident drop. 28 Kent 8500 9800 45 27 5 0 £300k Extensive scheme. Flat top humps. minis. refuges. . Hoc St Werburgh Landscaping. Joint funding. Expensive but speed and (potential) accident drop considerable. 29 Kent 13500 13500 40 'l-~o 3 2.4 £425k Gateways. chicanes. textured surfaces and street Bras ted lighting. Expensive environmental works with marginal speed drop . .: -27 " -~ 1. Table 2.2 Rural Case Studies ( cont) Case Traffic Speed Accidents Study Location volume mp~ pia pa Cost Comments (See Note 1, p. 27) Before After Before Alter Before After 30 Leicestershire 10200 -51 44 10.7 B £50k Villages on a principal road. Narrowings, A427. Rve Villages Gateways. lighting improvements, signs. markings. Low cost. Noticeable speed drop. 31 Oxfordshire 8400 6300 37 28 4 1.7 £55k Rat run. Road humps. minis. Moderate cost with Kennington significant accident and speed drop. Lower humps may have been OK. 32 Strathclyde 550 550 49 41 3.7 1 £15k Gateways, refuges, rumble strips, signs. markings. Croy Moderate cost. Significant speed drop in one direction and considerable accident drop potentia!. 33 West Yorkshire --48 39 --£2.5k Low cost jiggle bars. Unsuccessful. H1gh and low West Bretton speeds 1n conflict and no1se complaintS from residents. Jiggle bars removed. 34 West Sussex l1135o 113so I 56 ~ I 4.3 ''I £50k Measure!'; inc::~ude narrow1ng, the provtsion of a Birdham I cycle track and hatched central reserve. Macerate cost with considerable speed drop. 35 West Sussex 5000 3600 -0.3 0 £85k Enwonmentally sens1t1ve. Road humps, narrowing, Bramber ch1cane. Expensive but main obtective ;o reduca through traffic ac:iieved. 36 West Sussex 1300 1080 40 25 0.3. 0 £25k Road humps, m1n1s. 30 mph lim1t. to encourage Fonrwell through traffic onto by-pass. Moderate cos: w1th considerable speed drop. 37 West Sussex "10100 10100 42 39 1.3 0.8 . £9.5k Combination oi gateways and m1ni road humos . Selsey (1) Unsuccessful. Noise complaints from resicer.ts. Replaced by Case Study 38. 38 West Sussex i0100 10100 40 32 1.3 0 £3k Edge and centre markings and road studs to Selsey (2). narrow carriageway Low cost with s1gn,ficant soeec arop. Replaced Case Study 37. Table 2.3 Residential Case Studies Case Traffic Speed Accidents Study Location voiume mph pia pa Cost Comments (See Note 1, p. 27) Before After Before After Before After 39 North Yorkshire 4000 4000 27 15 2.3 1 £130k 20 mpn z.one. Gateways, humps. bulle outs. ana York way plugs, chicanes. ra1sed junCtions. residents The Groves parking. Moderate cost. Considerable speed ana accident reduction. 40 West Yorkshire 680 600 32 19 1.3 1 £105k 20 mph z.one. Chicanes. narrowings, platforms in Bradford two streets. Relatively expensive due to mater- Scotchman Road ials and street lighting but considerable speed aroo. 41 Suffolk 2000 2000 30 16 4.2 1 £85k 20 mph zone. 40 humps of different types. Ipswich Moderate cost with considerable drop in accidents Britannia Area and speeds. 42 Manchester 2500 1100 -12 8.8 NYA £175k 20 mph zone. Humps, signals. narrowing, one- Crumpsall Green way. closure. Reasonable cost. Full evaluation not yet available. -28 Table 2.3 Residential Case Studies ( cont) Case Traffic Speed Accidents Study Location volume mph piapa Cost Comments (See Note 1. p. 27) Before After Before After Before After 43 Dorset 5333 . 27 16 25 . £320k 20 mph zone. Plateaus, protected parking, mini- Poole roundabouts. Relatively expensive but considerable Upper Parkstone speed drop and accident reduction potentiaL 44 Warwickshire 3000 3000 30 20 2.7 0 £8k 20 mph zone. 4 pinch points with speed cushion. Nuneaton Low cost and considerable speed reductions. No Cedar Road accidents to date. Compare Case Study 45. 45 Warwickshire 2500 2500 42 27 4 . £10k 20 mph zone peripheral road. 5 offset pinch points Nun eaton with speed cushion. Low cost. considerable speed Ou. Elizabeth Road drop. No accidents to date. Compare Case Study 44. <16 Warwickshire 9000 9000 <11 30 11 1 £4k 20 mph zone oeripheral road. Severe ch1canes Nuneaton now removed due to complaints about congestiOn. Whittleford Road Low cost with considerable speeo reduction. .!7 StaftOiOSi!lfe 350 220 I 40 ,~ I 1.5 0 l £79k I 20 mpn zone. i=iat top humps in b1ock pav1ng. I 1-.1 Stoke on Trent Some humps modified tor hearses. Moderate Fenton Area cost. Constdera~le accident anc speeo reduction. <18 Avon 7000 3750 36 23 2.8 0 £40k Flat too humps and ra1sed junction on a bus route. Bnstol Ramps to be extended. Reasonable cost with Throgmorton Road constderable speed and potenttal accident crop. I -19 West Yorkshtre 3400 2000 34 25 4.3 0 £70k A senes of smgle way narrowed ramos. entry Bradford ramos and Junction table. Reasonable cost with Upper Rushton Ad considerable soeed ana accident droo. 50 London 700 530 39 2i 2.7 1.5 ! £31k Round top humps. Moderate cost includes WestWickam additional measures for displaced traffic. Speed Hawes Lane Area drop and potenttal acc1dent reduction considerable. 51 Clackmannanshire . . 30• 21 0.8 0 £10k Gateways ana c:-ticanes with over-run areas for 1illicoultry buses. Macerate cost w1th considerable droo in Stalker Avenue acctcents anc soeeds. 52 Devon 7000 7000 I 40 25 0.2 0 £20k To ca1r.; trafftc at pecestrtan crosstng po1nt us1ng Barnstaple refuges. harcn1ng and coloured surfacing. Park School Reasonable cost w1th cons1derao1e soeed crop. I I 53 Devon 6200 5500 34 24 6.6 1.4 I £220k Senes of flat roo numos. htgn cuality matenals. Exeter street lignttng, lancscao1ng. Relatively expensive Burnthouse Lane but considerable acc1dent and soeed reductton I I I I I 54 Devon 7900 7000 33 25 4.7 0.3 £91k Flat roo humps. 7oorway extenstons. protected Exmouth parktng, mtni roundabouts. Relatively expensive. Withycombe Considerable acc1dent reduction and sign1iicant Village Road soeed drop. 55 Devon 3900 3300 37 32 5.3 3 £99k Narrowing, ch1canes by widening foorways and Plymouth planting features. Bus route. Reasonable cost. Beaumont Road Considerable accident and noticeable speed drop. 56 Devon 14000 14000 45 41 27 14 £12.6k A lane and hatch marking scheme to narrow Plymouth a dual carnageway and provide cycle lanes. Crownhill Road Low cost and considerable accident drop. 57 Dumfries & Galloway 4000 4000 35 25 0.3 0 £36k Flat top humps, narrowing. refuges. protected Dumfries parking. Bus route. Moderate cost. Considerable Calside Road speed drop. Potential hazards at schools. •. f ... t -29 - Table 2.3 Residential Case Studies (cont) Case Traffic Speed Accidents Study Location volume mph pia pa Cost Comments (See Note 1. p. 27) Before After BeiOI't After BefOI't After 58 Essex - -33 27 30 15 E77k Flat top narrowed humps. prionty working, mini. Harlow Some driver conflict. Moderate cost. Significant Parringdon Road speed drop, considerable potential accident drop. 59 Essex 8700 3580 40 27 3 0 £46k An extensive scheme of round top road humps. Hadleigh Reasonable cost with considerable speed Scrub Lane reduction and potential accident reduction. 60 London --36 31 - -£9.3k Low cost experimental installation of thermoplastic Bexley rumble strips. Rejected by a majority of residents Christchurch Road and subsequently removed at E24k cost. 61 Gtoucestersh1re --- --::1 0.5k A series of road closures by footway extensions to Gloucester prevent speeding and rat runn1ng. Wide local CondUit Street suooort. Moderate cost. 62 Gwent \"'' 1830 32 20 0.7 0 I 225k An entry chicane plus road humps and narrow1ng. Newport One-way street. Moderate cost with considerable Uanthe...vy Road speed drop. 53 Hertfordsnire 720 270 44 18 54 0.5 252k Round and flat top humps. m1n1 rouncabours. Heme! Hemosteac priority narrowing. Reasonable cost and Peascroft Road considerable acc1dent and soeeo reduction. 64 London 820 450 35 20 '-, .... , 0.7 £70k Speed taole. cn1canes. w1dth restnctions. refuges Shepherds Bush ana junction treatments. Reasonable cost with Wulfstan Street considerable speec and acc1dent drop. 65 South Humbers1de -- - 16.7 7.5 :::22k Entry treatment. speed tables and m1ni round Gnmsby abouts all in quality surfacing. Moderate cost with Grant Thorold Park I considerable accident reduction. 66 South HumoerSJde -- -~--2 £201k Environmental enhancement. Chicanes. refuges. Grimsoy protected parking, min1 roundabout. Rela!lveiy Nur.sthoroe Estate expens1ve but considerable accident reduct;on. I 67 Isle at Wignt 4830 3180 35 i7 34 1.7 240k Numerous flat top read humps. plateaus Newport incarcerating bus lay bys. Reasonable cost with Pan Estate consJderaote acc:aent and speed droo. 58 Kent 5C50 3500 39 29 4 i £.!3k Block pavec plateaus w1tn narrow1ng features. SittJngbourne Moderate cost with cons,cerable accident and Stanhope Avenue soeed reduction. : 69 i<.ent 7000 6500 44 37 2.7 1 £42k Unusual scheme of 'build-outs' and refuges to Tonbndge produce chicanes. Reasonable cost with noticeable Brook Street speed reducuon and potential accident reduction. 70 West Yorkshire 4000 4000 39 24 7 1 £30k Formidable pinch points with speed cushions. Huddersfield Rumble strips. Relatively expensive but Victoria Road considerable accident and speed reduction. 71 West Yorkshire 5000 5000 35 22 3 0.4 £30k Plateaus, thermoplastic 'thumps'. Latter effective. Golcar Bus problems with plateau ramps. Relatively Sycamore Avenue expensive. Considerable accident and speed drop. 72 West Yorkshire 7000 5500 35 24 8 0.5 £45k Unusual rounded rumble strips built despite Paddock traders and bus operators opposition. Moderate Church Street cost. Considerable speed and potential accident drop. -30 - Case Traffic Speed Accidents Study Location volume mph pia pa Cost Comments {See Note 1, p. 27) Before Alter Before Alter Before Alter 73 West Yorkshire 8500 6500 35 22 3.3 1 £80k A series of raised plateaus plus new street Ravensthorpe light1ng. Relatively expensive but considerable North Road accident and speed drop. 74 Staffordshire 3600 2800 39 29 2 1.2 £8.2k Round top humps. Low cost scheme. Featherstone Considerable speed reduction. Some rerouting The Avenue has occurred. 75 Lancashire 2600 -34 15 2.3 -£39k Flat top humps with narrowings and boliards m Lancaster high quality materials. Bus route. One-way streets. Primrose Area I Reasonable cost and considerable speed drop. 76 Lancasrure 5600 4750 35 30 6.3 2.6 \::47k Sligntly raised pinch points, chicane. rumble area. Burnley Relatively expensive with considerable ootential Brougnam Street acc1aent reduction ana marg1nal speed crop. 77 Manchester 2900 1650 38 22 7.7 1 UOk Flat top humps, narrowings and priority. Bus Woocsmoor route. Relatively expensive. Considerable speed Woodsmoor Lane drop and accident reduction potent1ai. 73 Lancon i700 90 28 0 2 0 :O:iOk An unusual ooen road closure. Ra1sed aeterrent Newnam surtac:ng to re1ntorce a limited access restnction. Vancus roacs : Macerate cost w1th a high degree of compliance. 79 Oxfcrdsh1re 5700 4200 34 26 1.3 2 £i7.5k A road hump scheme w1th 1: 12 ramps on a bus Banbury route. Moaest cost. Noticeable speed drop. The Fairway Acc1aent freauency up but no.child casualties. 80 Strathclyde 12800 1900 30 18 2.7 0.4 :0:15k Comb1nation of chicanes. narrowings. 'thumps· Drumc:1apel and mark1ngs. Moderate cost with considerable Pee! Glen Road I . speec crop and potential accident reouction. 31 Surrey 360 240 I 34 .19 1.3 0 £35k A senes of round top road humps. Moderate cost Guiidford witn cons:cerable acc:cenr and soeea crop. Cumberlanc Ave 32 West YorKS:"'Ire 3000 2700 38 30 1.4 0.6 ::25k Rubber keros ana bollards for ch1cane system. WaKefield Emergency services and bus route. Macerate cost Ou ::Iizabeth Road w1th s:gnificant speed drop ana ccns1aerable ootentlal acc1aent reduction. I 23 Surrey 16300 5800 -· .. 12 4 I £84k Seoarate cycle track. cnicanes (bus tnals). \11!c:--~:ng I refuges. protectec oarK1hg. Relatively exoens1ve. Albert Dnve Speed and accident drop considerable ··see Case Study tor aetails. 84 West Yorkshire 3000 2600 33 25 1 0.7 £13.5k Thermoplastic 'thumps· to min1mise effects on South Elmsall buses (special authorisation). Moderate cost. Ash Grove Noticeable speed drop. Replacing with ch1canes. as Wiltshire 4000 4400 39 25 1.1 0 £22k Humps. cycle slips. May modify -no1se complaints, Laverstock congestion. Fixing problems with rubber humps. Church Road Reasonable cost. Considerable speed drop. .. -31 - APPENDIX3 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC .CONTROL PROGRAM BROCHURE AND CITIZEN ACTION REQUEST FORM 17 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PROGRAM ·Ielping to make 1eighborhood treets safer. CITY OF ~r.:ID~1r Mayor Jim White CITY OF KENT 1RANSPORTATION DEPARTMENf Welcome to Kent's Neighborhood Traffic Control Program Traffic conditions on residential streets can greatly affect neighborhood livability. When our streets are safe and pleasant, the quality of life is enhanced. When traffic problems become a daily occurrence, our sense of community and personal well- being are threatened. With your help and the City's efforts in education, engineering enforcement, and encouragement, these concerns can be addressed. Citizen irrvolvement is an important part of all traffic calming projects. The people who live and work in the project area have the opportunity to become actively irrvolved in the planning and decision-making process. What is the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program? The Neighborhood Traffic Control Program addresses neighbor- hood traffic safety concerns while partnering with citizens and/or community groups to become actively involved in the improve- ment process. Through active participation by you and your neighbors, we can identify the problem, plan the approach, implement the solutions, and evaluate the effectiveness. How does the program work? The program is a two year process. The first year focuses on passive, less-restrictive measures like educational programs, enforcement, pavement legends, and signing. Should Phase I actions prove mctfective at reducing excessive speeds or traffic volumes, more ~~-. ethods.may be considered, based on certain threshold cntena. . First Year-Phase I """-. Educational, less-restrictive measures • Seco~~r-Phase II · Phys1cal devices . . '"' \Vhen does Phase ll begin? Phase II of the program begins approximately one year from the implementation of the Phase 1 measures. We again, collect data and compare it to the previous year's information. Should the traffic concerns still exist and there is sufficient data to support this, then the location will be reviewed for physical devices. \Vhat types of physical devices are used in Phase IT? There are many types of devices used-some of these devices include: • Curb Extensions • Partial Closures • Entry Treatments • Speed Humps • Traffic Circles • Medians \Vhat is involved in Phase ll of the program? Each of these devices is unique and specific criteria has been established for when and where they may be used. Their installation is determined by traffic engineering analysis and three main factors: • Volumes ... between 300 and 3000 vehicles per day • Speeds ... in excess of35 MPH (85%) • Area topography Based on the data collected and the topography of the area, a device or combination of devices may be recommended. Of course, any recommended action will be based on sound engineering and planning principles. Safety remains paramount in the decision-making process .. including access for public safety vehicles. Should a location proceed to Phase 11, neighborhood meetings are held and majority support (700./a) is required before proceed- ing with construction of the physical device. Brush Trims The trimming and or removal of brush by homeowners or City crews to a!lov. better sight distance. Neighborhood Speed Watch Program This program allows citizens the oppor- tunity to check-out a radar unit and record the speeds of vehicles traveling in their neighborhood. The registered owners are identified (through the DMV) and sent a warning letter asking them to reduce their speeds. The letters are not violations, but reminders about the posted speed limit and the community's cone Rumble Strips The installanon of 4" raised buttons placed in a design sequence across the roadway, causing a vehicle to vibrate, alerting the motorist to an upcoming situation. These may be used in conjunction with curves, crosswalks, pavement legends, and speed limit signs. f'S GET STARTED ... JSe fill out the enclosed Citizen Action Request (CAR) form, and be ;ific when noting the location and tim..:s you are experiencing traffic or ·ty problems. In addition. look over the possible Phase I solutions :ribed below and let us know what you feel would be appropriate for your ¥1borhood. When complete. mail the CAR to us to begin the process. We ~ forward to working with you in making your neighborhood streets safer. SSIBLE PHASE I SOLUTIONS !ty. SPEED LIMIT 25 Speed Radar!railer. Board. A portable trailer equipped w1th a radar unit which detects the speed of passing vehicles and displays it on a digital reader board. This device shows drivers their ·•actual" speed versus the posted speed limit and encourages their compliance. Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaign This program involves a personalized newsletter mailed to your community. The newsletter explains volumes and speeds in your area. recommended traffic calming measures, traffic laws, pedestrian safety, etc. . •••• . . . . · . • • • • • • • • • • . Pavement Markings ~· • •• • • • · Th•-e•p•a•in•t•in•g•o•f•l•e•g•en•d•s•u•p•o•n-th•e•p•a•v•e•m•e•n-t. • : • • These mav include centerlines, foglines. school cr~ssings. and speed limits. I Taroet Enforcement Incr~ased enforcement by the Kent Police Department. Traffic section. Signing The posting of appropriate traffic control signs. These may include speed limit, parking, dead-end, school signs, etc. Citizen Action Request Form for the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program Contact Name---------------DayPhone ------------------~- Address _________________ __ Zip Code--------------- Concerned Location ------------------------------ Neighborhood------------------------------- What concerns have you identified with the above location? Certain Times of the Day? What solutions do you feel would address your concerns? (Check all that apply) Educational Measures Other Measures 0 Neighborhood Speed Watch 0 Brush Trims · 0 Traffic Safety Campaign 0 Signing 0 Radar Speed Trailer 0 Rumble Strips 0 Enforcement 0 Painted Legends Thank you for taking the time to fill out the Citizen Action Request From. Once we recieve the form, we will be contacting you with the Proposed Improvement Plan. Date Received--------------Project Number Assigned --------- Field Review--------------------------------- 0 Accidents 0 Speeds 0 Map 0 Police NEPArea -------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Improvement Plan Sent to Contact Person _________________ _ Comments ___________________________________ _ m3092.tvd.PM6.rvsd6/96 \Vhy would our neighborhood want to participate? There could be many reasons. Some of the important ones may include: • Vehicles traveling faster than the posted speed limit • Non-local traffic using the neighborhood as a short Cut • Traffic accidents • Pedestrian and bicycle safety How do we get started? Identify the traffic concerns in your neighborhood • Discuss possible solutions with your neighbors from the measures listed in this brochure • Fill out the "Citizen Action Request" fonn, and mail back to us. How long until we hear about our recommendations and proposed solutioDS? )nee the Citizen Action Request form is received, we review :·our concerns and begin to collect data. We also conduct a field ~eview of the area. From this infonnation, we compile a Proposed Improvement ?Ian for the location and inform you of our findings and ~ecomrnendations of Phase I solutions. This review takes 1pproximately 6 to 8 weeks from the date we receive your 2itizen Action Request form. Special thanks to th~ City of Bellevue for their permission to use this flyer ~ ('D ::J :-" ~ ~ VI ::J" ::::J CIQ ..... 0 ::J \0 OJ 0 VJ N N--!n N~-O::J~ .r::.,VI 0 ..... v ...,., :::1"0 :;;:::: )>:::::. ('D < ~ ::::J ('D 0 ..... ::J c ::J ('D CJ VlrD ov c ~ ......... :::1"3 ('D ::::J .....