HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-11; City Council; 11191; APPEAL OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SPEED REDUCTION MEASURES FOR PONTIAC DRIVEa d at
c) a
g
5
.rl CI
PC
a,
24 0
\
cn a
AB# 16 1% TITLE: APPEAL OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DEP’
C,Ty MTGm6/1 1/91
DEPT. ENG CITY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SPEED REDUCTION
MEASURES FOR PONTIAC DRIVE
The Traffic Safety Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council
u a
Lo
-4 Lo
a 0 u m
A (d
3
6
::
i?
*E!
rj
a 4
m u $ 5 0 0 a
c. uu .r( (d 5 Yi u cc $40 3PI u\
Ll -7-4
00 uu U w .ti w3
uu Cd mrd
PC0 sc UM
Offl &I -4 a
4cn
a7-4 Uh ca 33 01 vcr,
sa
$4
c) -4
a0 u
.. 4 cn --.
r-4
r-4
2 0 --. F= 0 a
5
\c)
: 5:
0
appeal and uphold the TSC recommendations regarding speeding vehicles or
Drive.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On May 6, 1991 the Traffic Safety Commission considered the request of reside
on Pontiac Drive to implement a measure@) to help reduce the speed of
travelling on Pontiac Drive between Victoria Avenue and Elm Avenue. This F
Pontiac Drive is approximately 0.5 miles long and has a 25 mile per hour pri
be 34 miles per hour at Victoria Avenue and 36 miles per hour at Chestnut
Various traffic control devices, including 25 mile per hour speed limit signs, hi
previously installed on Pontiac Drive between Victoria Avenue and Elm Ave
Exhibit 1 ).
Pontiac Drive is a residential collector street 1.2 miles in length, terminating at Elr
on the north and Tamarack Avenue on the south. From Victoria Avenue
Tamarack Avenue the prima facie speed limit is 35 miles per hour. The 24-hour
Daily Traffic volume on Pontiac Drive north of Victoria Avenue obtained from
count on April 2, 1991 was 3,024 vehicles. During the past four and one-half ye
have been two reported collisions on Pontiac Drive between Victoria Avenue
Avenue. Both of these collisions were a result of a hit and run vehicle traveling 01
Drive colliding with a parked vehicle on Pontiac Drive.
In their appeal, residents have requested that one or more of the following me:
implemented:
speed limit, Recent speed surveys by staff found the critical speed (85th perc
1. STOP signs be placed on Pontiac Drive at the intersection o
Avenue and also Spokane Way.
That a barrier be installed across Pontiac Drive immediately
Victoria Avenue.
That speed humps be installed on Pontiac Drive between Victori
and Spokane Way.
A combination of the above.
2.
3.
4.
The Traffic Safety Commission evaluated the traffic data collected and also c(
testimony by citizens at the meeting. However, a program of residential neigl
speed control generally follows a four step process outlined as follows. This prc
endorsed by the Traffic Safety Commission, in principle, as evidenced recommendations to help reduce speeding vehicles on Pontiac Drive,
1, Establish and enforce general laws pertaining to speed limits.
9 e
q PAGE TWO OF AGENDA BILL NO. 14 /q/
2. Install traffic control devices to provide regulatory or warning mess
the vehicle driver.
Educate residents to better understand the causes of problems, pl
solutions and the advantages and disadvantages of implementin!
solutions.
Install geometric design features within the roadway to mana
physical movement of vehicles or pedestrians.
3.
4.
By a 5-0 vote, the Traffic Safety Commission recommended that the following act
implemented on Pontiac Drive.
1. Provide additional visual reinforcement of the 25 mile per hour res
speed limit by the following actions:
A. Replace the existing 24" x 30" speed limit signs that are loci
Pontiac Drive at Victoria Avenue and Olympia Drive with lar!
x 45" 25 mile per hour speed limit signs.
Install one additional 24" x 30" 25 mile per hour sign i
direction on Pontiac Drive in the vicinity of Chestnut Avem
Stripe a "25" legend on the pavement adjacent to the new
limit signs to be installed.
Replace the existing 24" x 30" R2-4 "25 Zone Ahead" sign
larger 36l x 45" R2-4 "25 Zone Ahead" sign.
B.
C.
D.
2. Continue to provide police enforcement of speeding vehicles on '
Drive on a manpower available basis.
Send a letter, signed by the Police Chief, to all citizens (1 ,OOO+ ho
the Pontiac Drive community asking for their cooperation in obsen
25 mile per hour speed limit.
Establish a Pontiac Drive neighborhood task force. This task i
recommended to include local neighborhood volunteers, hom
association representatives, Neighborhood Watch captains (
designated representative, a Police Department Traffic I
representative and an Engineering Department Traffic Engineering I
representative. The task force would initiate a Neighborhooc
Watch Program and begin to evaluate other appropriate control me
The task force is to report back to the Commission within three mo
its progress.
3.
4.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Impacts vary depending upon the recommended course of action.
0
a PAGE TWO OF AGENDA BILL NO. L(, /y/
EXHIBITS:
1. Condition Diagram.
2.
3.
Minutes for May 6, 1991 Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
Appeal letter dated May 12, 1991.
DSN / R1 (TYPICAL)
LEGEND
- STOP SIGN - SPEED LIMIT SIGN
R2-4 - 25 ZDNE AHEAD SIGN
R26 / 81 - NO PARKING ANYTIME
/ BIKE LANE SIGN
DSN - DOUBLE STREET NAME SIGN
DOUBLE YELLOW % (TYP.)
R26 / 81 (END)
R26 / 81 (BEGIN)
BIKE LANE (TYP,)
I
Date of Meeting: May 6, 1991
Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fuller called the Meeting to order at 3:OO p.m.
ROLL CW:
Present: Commissioners Fuller, Blake, Melideo, O'Day and
Stachoviak.
Absent ! None.
Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer
Sgt. Don Metcalf, Police Department
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting held April 1, 1991, were Fuller
approved as presented. Blake
Melideo
O'Day
Stachoviak
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
There were no requests to address the Commission on a non-
agenda item.
OLD BUSINESS:
Bob Johnson reported Council will adopt the prima facie
speed for El Camino Real from Lisa Street to the south City
limits at tomorrow night's Meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Pontiac Drive, Victoria Avenue to Elm Avenue - Request
for STOP signs at Victoria and Spokane intersections,
installation of speed humps and/or other measures to
reduce speeds.
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, gave the staff report,
stating this item has been before this Commission a
number of times, with staff looking at a number of
measures to address this speeding issue. This has been
an issue for many years, and the request has been made
to install STOP signs at Victoria and Spokane and speed
bumps and other diversionary types of action to divert
traffic.
Mr. Hubbs stated that Sgt. Metcalf of the Police
Department, Bob German of Risk Management, Brian Watson
from the Fire Department, are all present to answer
questions. There was a petition mailed to the
Commission and included in the staff packet. The
request has been made for speed humps--not speed bumps.
Transparencies were shown of the area in question and
the residences in the area; also tables showing the
traffic volumes and a spot speed survey. Council did
establish Pontiac as a through street on the
recommendation of the Traffic Safety Commission, as it
did qualify for that designation. Also, no parking was
established on Pontiac to allow for bike lanes.
MINUT 8 3 0 y
NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
The section to Pontiac being considered today is
between Victoria Avenue and Elm Avenue, which is a 0.5
mile portion. There are six intersections, and since
1987, only two collisions have occurred on the street-
-one was a hit and run where a parked vehicle was hit
with one in 1988 and one in 1989. There have been no
collisions at the intersections. Pontiac is a
residential collector street, and is built for a
capacity of 1,200 to 5,000 ADT.
There is no doubt that there is speeding on Pontiac, as
on most of the streets of the City. The portion of
Pontiac Drive from Victoria Avenue to Elm Avenue
qualifies as a residential district with a prima facie
speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Signs are posted and
legends are striped on the roadway surface. The most
recent speed survey was done in January and April at
Chestnut, and the critical speed was 36 miles per hour.
Sgt. Metcalf stated that with the critical speed at 34
to 36 miles per hour, this is approximately 10 miles
over the speed limit. There has been selected
enforcement in the City based on accidents. There are
ten streets where over 60 percent of the injuries
occur. Traffic enforcement in those areas has resulted
in a reduction in accidents. Radar is only for the
critical speed, or above. Sgt. Metcalf said that on
Pontiac, they issued 52 citations, with 48 of them to
local residents of that area. There have been only two
accidents and Pontiac is not a unique street.
Sgt. Metcalf continued, stating that the last three
months the Police have focused on Pontiac Drive, and
when the Police are present, the speed slows down, but
if they leave, within 48 hours the speed returns.
Bob Johnson stated that staff had checked license
plates to determine whether the speeding was local
people or those passing through. When they checked
those entering and leaving the area, only abut 15 percent of the traffic was passing through, with the
rest being local.
Mr. Johnson said that STOP signs to slow traffic are
not an unusual request from the public. However, they
do not do the job. The warrants are not met for STOP
signs at Spokane or Victoria.
Several things have been done in this area to help
enforce the speed limits, and Mr. Johnson explained
what has been done and added that staff is trying to
come up with an engineering solution to a residential
problem.
Mr. Hubbs stated that this is a neighborhood speeding
issue and as traffic volumes increase it will become
critical in urban areas. Shortcuts are initiated to
avoid the traffic, and speeding is a factor similar to
other conditions. To address this problem,
experimental approaches are being tested. These do
open cities to risk and must be done with detailed
traffic studies and carefully implemented.
a MINUT!!
Page 3 y
May 6, 1991 COMMISSIONERS
NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
Slides were shown of barricades, road closures, raised
medians and speed humps in various cities.
Mr. Hubbs stated that some of the problems connected
with these various types of experimental devices are
government liability, noise going over the bumps,
emergency vehicles access--particularly ambulances
carrying a patient. Also, these devices are expensive
to install and are somewhat unsightly. He said he did
Pontiac Drive or any other street, without more
discussion and research at the Commission level and
throughout the community. Mr. Hubbs said staff wants
to evaluate this uniformly throughout the City and
develop a criteria, and review the legal and risk
management aspects.
Bob Johnson summarized the recommendations of the
Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee and used an
overhead to show them.
Thomas Johnson, 3624 Pontiac Drive, representing
Chestnut Hills Community Action Group, stated the
neighbors are concerned about the speeding and their
goal is to prevent a traffic fatality. He said the
north Pontiac residents are different than those who
use this as an access road. There are 44 houses with
driveways on Pontiac on north Pontiac and no driveways
on south Pontiac. Mr. Johnson showed a transparency of
the street layout. He said the north portion is 25
miles per hour with no bike lanes and the south portion
is 35 miles per hour with bike lanes. However, nobody
drives at the speed limit, and north Pontiac is a
shortcut for many people.
Mr. Johnson said that safety is the main concern, and
the speed must be controlled for safety. He reviewed
the recommendations made by staff, and said that a
would block the traffic and remove the problem. He
added that speed humps did slow the traffic in Thousand
Oaks. They want a device installed on the street.
Tony Loeffler, 3555 Pontiac, explained about road
humps, stating they protect public health, increase
road safety and divert unnecessary traffic while
retaining normal access and appeal to all users.
Oscar Williams, 3429 Pontiac Drive, stated the
residents there have a problem and don't know the
answer. He asked the engineers and law-enforcing
officers to do what they can to get it resolved.
Rocky Natale, 3453 Pontiac Drive, stated that 90
percent of the traffic through Pontiac live on the
lower end, and something must be done.
Anthony Tyler, 3465 Pontiac Drive, stated he can't back
out of his driveway because of the speeding.
not feel any of these devices could be recommended for
solution is needed, not larger signs. A barricade
e MI NUT^ y I
May 6, 1991 Page 4 COMMISSIONERS
NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
Yvonne Stargardt, 3625 Pontiac Drive, stated that
before the street was cut through there was no speedinq
problem. The speeders are from the south side using
their area, and something must be done.
Robert Hoskins, 3558 Pontiac, asked for a show of hands
of people who have had at least three dangerous
incidents backing out of their driveways, and
approximately 80 people held up their hands. He said
the speeding is dangerous on Pontiac Drive.
E. R. Hunter, 3623 Pontiac Drive, stated that a barrier
is the ultimate solution.
Mike Stevens, 3622 Pontiac Drive, spoke about the
speeding and the danger in backing out of driveways.
He was in favor of closing the street.
Manya Bebieff, 3627 Pontiac, stated she has been
writing to the City about the problem on Pontiac Drive
since 1988, and has meet with staff. She said that
north Pontiac and south Pontiac are different
communities and something must be done. She said she
favors speed humps or closing the street.
Janet Jones, 2613 Banbury Court, stated she had some
petitions signed by other neighborhoods that will be impacted if traffic control devices are installed on
Pontiac Drive. Unwarranted traffic control devices
deny easy access to Elm Avenue and cause inconvenience
to anyone going through the area.
Anna Vallez, 3621 Pontiac Drive, representing Residents
for Pontiac, addressed the Commission in favor of
placing a gate on Pontiac, stating then emergency
vehicles would have access with no problem. She said
that larger signs would not help the situation, and
said she would like the number of tickets written by
the Police on one day in that area.
Rick Wagner, 3608 Pontiac Drive, stated he could not
back out of his driveway and was in favor of a
barricade at the top of the hill.
David Woodward, 3413 Corvallis Street, spoke for safe
access to the homes.
Chairman Fuller closed the public testimony portion at
4:55 p.m. He asked for a show of hands of those
favoring stop signs, speed humps or road closure, and
almost all those present responded. The next largest
number of people favored closing of the street and
smaller numbers favored the stop signs and/or humps.
Commissioner Melideo commented that this is a public
street, and the people seem to feel it is their private
street. She expressed concern about hearing that type
of testimony, as it means a division in the neighbors,
rather than working together as a community. She said
it is the neighbors themselves that are affecting the
area by the way they drive, and they must work together
to solve the problem.
NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
In response to query regarding the speed humps, Lloyd
Hubbs stated the City is studying them, but the hope is
that it would not be necessary to resort to them.
Commissioner O'Day also asked about raising the speed
limit, but staff stated that due to the number of
residences in that area, it does quality for the 25
m.p.h. speed limit.
Staff reiterated that stop signs cause accidents,
particularly when they do not meet the warrants.
Speeders are the most common complaint on most of the
City streets. However, speed humps are not very good-
looking. Blocking a street causes problems.
Commissioner Stachoviak suggested that maybe this area
would be a place to try speed humps, if and when the
City decides it is feasible.
Chairman Fuller stated he could not approve installing
speed humps ahead of criteria being established by the
City. He said it is not feasible to close a collector
road.
The Traffic Safety Commission accepted the Traffic
Safety Coordinating Committee recommendation, as
follows :
1. Provide additional visual reinforcement of the 25 mile
per hour residential speed limit by the following
actions:
A. Replace the existing 24"x30"' speed limit signs
that are located on Pontiac Drive at Victoria
Avenue and Olympia Drive with larger, 36"x45" - 25
mile per hour speed limit signs.
B. Install one additional 24"x30" - 25 mile per hour
sign in each direction on Pontiac Drive in the
vicinity of Chestnut Avenue.
C. Stripe a 25" legend on the pavement adjacent to the
new speed limit signs to be installed.
D. Replace the existing 24"x30" R2-4 "225 Zone Ahead"
sign with a larger 36"x45" R2-4 "25 Zone Ahead"
sign.
2. Continue to provide police enforcement of speeding
vehicles on Pontiac Drive on a manpower available
basis.
3. Send a letter, signed by the Police Chief, to all
citizens (1,000+ homes) of the Pontiac Drive community
asking for their cooperation in observing the 25 mile
per hour speed limit.
COMMISSIONERS
Fuller
Blake
Melideo
O'Day
Stachoviak
MINUTE s 0
May 6, 1991 Page 6 u
COMMISSIONERS
NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
4. Establish a Pontiac Drive neighborhood task force.
This task force is recommended to include local
neighborhood volunteers, homeowner association
representatives, Neighborhood Watch captains or their
designated representative, a Police Department Traffic
Traffic Engineering Division representative. The task
force would initiate a Neighborhood Traffic Watch
Program and begin to evaluate other appropriate control
measures. The task force is to report back to the
Commission within three months on its progress.
Division representative and an Engineering Department
REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Melideo inquired about bikes on the sidewalk
along the fence on Carlsbad Boulevard, and staff stated
bikes are not allowed on any sidewalks in Carlsbad.
Sgt. Metcalf stated the Police Department is starting a bike
patrol and three officers will be on bicycles by the
Memorial Day Weekend from the north City limits to the south
in the beach area.
Staff was requested to bring the concept on the modified
traffic management program to this Commission for
discussion.
Commissioner Stachoviak stated he felt the Price Club would
be a disaster.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of May 6, 1991, was
adjourned at 5:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, ww Harriett Babbitt
Minutes Clerk
---- . - /f-TT-- eq$,7yf* - 75
May 12, 1991
e
City Clerk’s Office
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave Carlsbad Ca, 72008
Re: Pontiac Drive
Attention City Clerk;
Pursuant to the recent decision by the Carlsbad
Traffic Safety Committee on May 6 1391 regarding speed control
on Pontiac Drive, we request an appeal of that decision to the
City Council. We belive that this proposal is inadequate to
reduce speeds 13 MPH. The measures in the proposal are not a
permanent solution and the Traffic Department admits that it
will have little or no affect on the speeds. Enclosed please
find copies of the original request to the Safety Committee.
Please notify us as soon as scheduling is COItkpleted
at the address given below.
-
-- ”.
-,x
‘7
Chestnut Hil
C/o 3555 Pontiac Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
cc Mayor Lewis
cc City Council
0 0
March 3, 6331
Traffic Safety Committee
C/o Robert T. Johnson, Jr., P.E.
City of Carlsbad
2875 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad Ca. 92009-4859
Dear Mr. Johnson
Pursuant to our recent neighborhood meeting with you
on 1/22/91 we are presenting the following petition. As the
next step in making Pontiac Drive a safer and amicable access
for the children and residents in the neighborhood, we request
the placement of this petition on the Traffic Safety
Committee's agenda. Additionally we request that any studies
done for this purpose not affect or alter the studied
subject(s) , and accurately reflect typical high volume
periods. As you know our own traffic studies show that the 85%
speed is 44 MPM, with a maximun of 49 MPH. We feel that the
infringement of more than 80X of the traffic on north Pontiac
originating from south Pontiac is uncalled-for on this
residential street. This neighborhood considers these
statistics unacceptable. It is imperative that the city make
this residential street and both major intersections, safer for
resident pedestrians and young bicyclists. We petition that
(1) there be a reduction to the traffic using north Pontiac as
a short cut to the north section of El Camino Real, and (2)
limit the maximum level of speed to the 'prima facia' speed
limit of 25 MPH. We therefore petition that the Traffic Safety
1
'Heisenberg uncertainty principle: (A driver will slow upon sight
an uniformed officer or marked car.)
0 0
Committee review the alternatives below, study if necessary and
ratify at least one of the main elements.
- Installation of STOP signs on Pontiac at
the two admittedly blind intersections of
Victoria and Spokane.
- Installation of a barrier at the
division of north and south Pontiac, as
you have previously suggested between
Victora and halon.
- Installation of speed reducer humps' to
slow traffic approaching both directions
of the Spokane and Victoria intersections.
- A combination of the above alternatives.
Please notify us upon setting a date and time for this
subject.
Thank you for your personal attention to this very serious
matter.
ction Group
C/o 3555 Pontiac Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
cc City Attorney
cc Mayor Lewis
cc City Council
cc Chief Vales
cc Saftey Committee cc City Manager
2 A new feature to California, documentation is included.
0 0 i
--- NAME ADDRESS
a 0 0-
-.*
%d 4
0 0
ADDRESS ---_ NAFlE
/em ston&(-* \ (1 hd 01 k
.\.\3A- +A%-& m3-L 2775 iSpo-*(L -
7
c*c
a717
IJI!
&*SY&rnLf @. 72L.r.- s7/,- spo/(a, fweq e+
A- =zhL 4Lk7// 56 / L/.I-j k u
- 37 9/ fl4
739 -5325-
i loel -3-LTAd 6- F,kkL, ,qJ(lC [&
)OyyJnna6 %/ A&\ 3737 c9,.%\,,AT /
q7.R - 92y-i
3q37 e ,,e5Sj)bf-
7w-97 7- SL
\ \
---- I e.-wJ 3 &I&A C
Nb 3
be/& #G/eu~ ?U ue// 34d4,L,&~0&-7,,~,44&
0 0 v
--_ NAME ADDRESS
0 0
NAME ADDRESS
e -a
Lb
4
~ -.
I
L Speed Humps and The'Thsusand Oa
Expesier
By J. P. Clement, P.E.
ecause of the high traffic speeds speed was 37 mph, ranging from 27 to "Sleeping Policeman", a "P
e 0
4 bumps were evaluated with sizes rang-
iq from2inGheSWide by O.5hCheS high
to 12 feet wide by 6 inches high.
The British finally settled upon the 12
toot by 4 inch size (3.7 m by 102 mm) as
the most ideal shape. In Contrast to
speed bumps, it was found that: -
'1) At or below the design speed, drivers
would suffer no discomfort, and
2) Above the design speed, drivers
would suffer increasing levels of dis-
comfort depending on the amount
that the design speed is exceeded,
and
3) Motorists deliberately driving over a
hump at excessive speed would
most likely be able to retain direc-
tional control of their vehicles.
It was further anticipated that dramatic
speed reductions cou!d be achieved
under "real life" conditions because
most car drivers reported a "preferred"
hump crossing speed of 15 mph.
The next logical step for the British
was to install these devices on public
roadways to determine their actual ef-
fxtiveness on their residential roads.
Since 1975, 63 speed humps have
been installed on 10 streets in 9 com-
munities in the United Kingdom. AI-
though their residential area speed limit
is 30 mph. the test roads were experi-
encing prevailing speeds as high as 40
mph and carried as many as 8,600 vehi-
cles daily. Previous studies revealed that the over- Figure 2.
. The results were extremely success-
ful. With the 12' x 4" speed humps
spaced from 160 to 51 0 feet apart, the
maximum prevailing speeds were re-
duced an average of 30% (from 32 mph
before to 22 mph after). The actual pre-
vailing speeds across the speed humps
averaged about 15 rnph for cars and . light vans and about 12 mph for trucks.
These devices were also highly SUC-
cessful in reducing the volume of un-
necessary traffic by discouraging the
use of these slreets as short-cuts. Using
16 hour traffic count data (from 0600 to
2200 hours), traffic was reduced an av-
erage of 30% (ranging from a low of 1 Yo
to a high of 64%). Furthermore, the
overwhelming majority of residents
(79% average) and non-resident public hearings, the City decided to in- 25 mph prima facie speed limit.
motorists (60% average) favored the
humps.
Most importantly. in an analysis of col-
lision statistics at all of these locatipns.
the British concluded that "on the whole,
humps do reduce accident frequencies,
and this reduction is statistically Signifi-
cant at the 0.196 level".
Based upon the successful results ob-
tained in Great Britain. the United States
Department af Transportation (via the
Federal Highway Administration) spon-
sored further real-life installations of
speed humps on public roads in two U.S.
Cities (kea, California and Boston, '
Massachusetts). The demonstrated
continuing real-life success of these 12'
x 4" speed humps in these twd cities
has led to several other jurisdictions in-
stalling these devices on public roads
including Sacramento. California; Wash-
ington, D.C.; and Thousand Oaks,
California. And the list is growing.
Thousand Oaks Testing
Although we were somewhat skepti-
cal at first, our research convinced us
that these speed humps were at least
laworth a try". it was our hope that we
wouid be able to document further real-
life experiences with these devices on
our public roads. "Seeing" would be be-
lieving. On January 22, 1981, such an
OppOflUni~ arose. On that date the resi-
dents along Kelly Road petitioned the
City for help in reducing the traffic speed
and traffic volume along their streets.
Ke''y Road
Kelly Road is a 2,860 foot long, 40 foot
wide residential collector road with a
straight and gently rolling alignment
(vatying from 0.4 to 10.4% in grade).
all mean speed was 37 mph. the prevail-
ing speed was 43 mph and 99.7% of the
motorists exceeded 25 mph. Because
the California Speed Trap Law requires
that speed limits be posted dose to the
prevailing speed of motorists if radar is
used on residential streets pver one-half
mile of uninterrupted length (2.640 feet
and in the abscence of other factors), the speed "should" have been posted at
about 45 mph. This office, however,
simply could not justify such an "unrea-
sonable" speed limit on this residential
roadway.
The residenfs of Kelly Road had origi-
nally petitioned for stop signs andlor bar-
ricades to control traffic. However, after
several neighborhood meetings and
stall the experimental speed humps. To
that end, during September of 1981, six
12' x 4" speed humps were installed
on Kelly Road at spacings ranging from
440 to 570 feet.
The speed humps on these roads
were installed at a total Cost Of about
$500 each, of which only about 20% is
for materials. A 2" x 12" x 14' board
was Gut t0 the shape of \he 0
humps and used as a template-:
during construction to insure ma
shape conformity of the asphalt
coat. Toverifythe final height and of the speed humps, elevations
taken with a transit along one foo'
vals at 6 to 8 locations on one !
representative speed hump. I
humps were "string-lined" to dete
hump height only. This study ret
that if a speed hump is constructec
care and in two lifts, the final shap,
height can easity be maintained to 1
2% inch tolerances. However, wht
humps were installed in only one lit
PeciallY on Steep roads, the a
height and shape could vary by as I
as 1 % inches across a single hump
therefore. suggested that such s,
humps be placed in two lifts uti1
templates for both lifts to in
maximum height and shape confor
As can be Seen in Table 1. the ob
Prevailing speeds (85th percentile) \
reduced by 30% for a net reduction (
mph (from 43 mph before to 30
after). The prevailing speeds betv
the humps and across the humps v
reduced to 32 mph and 19 mph res1
tively. The dramatic downward shi
the entire speed profile cuwe to!
the ideal curve is clearly illustrate
Even though speeds were (
matically reduced providing a pos
improvement in overall safety, this 01
still had the following "reservations"
garding the continued use of the 4-il
high speed humps:
1) There is visual evidence that sc
vehicle's trailer hitches occasion;
bottom out on these humps.
2) The roadway surface about s f
downstream of several of the hun
has been scarred from an occasio
' . 3ront bumper striking the ground.
pick-ups tend to become airborne
the prima facie speed of 25 mph.
4) The prevailing 19 rnph hump Cr(
sing speed was 6 mph less than !
5) The prevailing mid-hump speedof ~
mph was still 7 mph over the prir
facie speed limit of 25 mph.
6) The acceleration and deceleration
vehicles along this road resulted irl
speed variance of 13 mph.
7) The preferred hump crossing speei
for the fire trucks and buses (1 5 m(
and 10 mph respectively) were 10
- 9. -I _.
$ . :
-5 z
*
=\
- 1 was placed and rolled hot Over ;
-
1 -. *
1 1
1 1
i
(-
1 3) Highly popular unladen comp
'c
36 ITE Joumal/Januav 1983
Installed 918 1 3/62 Y82 7/82 Overall 85% Speed
Road Length 2860' 2180' 2180' 1580' Before 43 38 38 2
Nominal 4" 3" 3" 3" Change% 30 21 34 i
\ Actual 3.5-4.0" 3.2-3.4" 3.0-3.4" Between Humps 27 26 23 <
Hump On Humps 14 19 18 1
2' ' Hump Height- . Change # 13 s 13 I
Hump Ouanlity 6 3 6 5 After 30 30 25 ~
Hump Height- Mean Speed.
Spacing 440-570' 690-800' 250-400' 230420' Speed Change 13 7 5
Volume 4080 1600 1600 790 Between Humps 32 34 27
Before 37 34 34 23 Speed Change 13 10 4
Change # 13 11 14 5 Before 99.7 97 97
24 Hour 85%
Overall Mean Speed On Humps 19 24 23
Afler 24 23 20 18 % Exceeding 25 mph
Change Ol0 35 32 41 22 After 40.5 35 15
1
i
To 15 adequately mph less than address the speed all of limit. these r ;A[,, 'i -" , A.zm , it ' FA-%,< ---,
humps. Another opportunity surfaced y-y;;.-;; :.nu . : m- [;
f , , ;;.;I, .*,e . .. ; ;ir' -" ; H,.
"I
\ . -*
n,..r.-nC I-*- ..
concerns and to bring the prevailing
speeds closer to the 25 mph prima facie
speed limit would necessarily require
as reducing the spacing between the
permitting the continuation of this exper-
iment when the residents of Silas Av-
_-
>I w,no f-I nrnl,,& r.i-r. ( lowering the height of the humps as well 15 YIII r-J
: '-ro ... :-r, L ... :I: . : .. _. ..
../x. : .
-t
enue petitioned for speed humps. __..-+
""..",I" r+-, - JY a~,,# (-1 Silas Avenue
Silas Avenue is a 40 foot wide, 2,180
foot long residential street with a refa-
5.996. The prevailing speed of traffic on
this roadway was 38 mph with 97% of
the motorists exceeding the 25 mph '' r " - " ., " " L ' *
speed limit.
Initially, three 3 inch high speed
humps were installed at 690 and 800
foot spacings. The lesser heights did re-
sult in the desired effect with prevailing
speeds recorded at 24 mph across the
humps. Because of the large spacings
between lhe humps. however, mid-
hump prevailing speeds were reduced
to only 34 mph.
In the next phase of this study three
additional speed humps were installed
with the resulting overall spacings rang-
ing from 250 to 400 feet. This closer
spacing reduced 'mid.-hump prevailing
speeds to 27 mph. Coupled with the
further reduced prevailing hump cros-
Sing speed Of 23 mph. the speed var- .
-\. r-Z. : I . , I:. : . . ..,! ;; ; : \...
i, I 1 ',*.,-
- .; .L -,: : ..-)
..' ,' ,:,'..\ .\ :*.: i 4.. i I : : , x, '... ' .
",.....I," 1 c . .. n -,e,-, n **/--I)
Figure 3. Before 8 Afler Spee Avenue. Thousand Oaks, Catifot
tivety flat gradient ranging from 1.6 to : : ,..,,. /:. - ;.:', , '. n: .. t . I _. . ' .. i , i. .. .... , ... . . ..&<.' -1 _______ ... --I .
Figure 2. Belore 8 Alter Speeds on Kelly Road. Thousand Oaks. Californra
t
iance along this roadway was held lo
within 22 mph of !he 25 mph speed limit.
This dramatic downward shift of the en-
tire speed profile is clearly illustrated in
Figure 3. Note that the "after" speed
profile curves are very nearly identical to
the "ideal" speed curve.
Figure 4 illustrates the resulting pre-
vailing speed profiles for the various size
humps studied at various Spacings. It is clear to the author that 3 inch high
humps spaced an average Of 300 feet apart represents the most ideal situation
for reaiistic speed managem
dentlal roads in keeping wit
facie speed limit.
The same vehicles were t
on Silas Avenue and in eve
preferred hump crossing
creased by 5 mph. No vehic
airborne and in all trial run:
Datsun 280 ZX at speeds 11
(with "hands off' the stec
there was absolutely no stc ,jerk or loss of any direction
anytime.
(-
IT€ Journal'Janu;
35 Cindy Avenue
Some concern has been expressed
by other agencies relative to the desira-
bility of installing speed humps on
streets where the grade exceeds 5%.
This oftice. however, believed that if 3
inch high humps were used at close
sbacings (to maintain prevailing speeds
at a low level) grade itself would have a
limited impact on whether or not to install
these devices. It should be noted that
the British installed a 4 inch high hump
301
25-.---
20 -
,~
/o -
5- \ ;$$'
n... /K-l...& 1 - -- - -- -
I3 ZY 23 tr
IT 17
a a D * D .L
ment of the Environment, TRRL SR423.1978. 5. "speed Contrd Humps in Kensington and
Gbsgow". R. Sumner & C. Baguley, U.K. Oepart- mnt of the Environment TRRL SR456.1979.
\ 'more common place, there will be even ~~l~~~~~~~~"~~.m~~~~~~~ g2
mment. TRRL ~~1017.1981. 7. "State of the Art Report: Residential Traffic Management... o, Smith 8 D. Appleyard, u.s.D.o.T., ~nwPJRomo92, December. 1980. 8. "lm roving the Restdentla1 Street Emron- merit.. 8. Sm,th 8 D. Appleyard, U.S.D.O.T.,
~~$~~'~k~~~$g Policemen.,, J, p, - Clement. P.E.. pU& works. May. 1982.
(Bates)". March 1.1582.
garding the use and desirability of these
speed humps. As these devices become
greater public pressure that speed
humps be installed on additional road-
ways. The general public like these de-
vices. In fact we've already received
verbal requests and petitions from RSi- dents of nearly 10 other streets; and the
21. Constants: 1 Kph = 0.621371 mph 1 mrn = 0.0393701 in. 1 m = 3.280840 ft. 16 hr. vo(. = 95% adt. 2
,
This article is based upon a rep(
thored by Mr. Clement, copies 01
are available by writing to: MI
Clement, P.E., Principal Engine6
Califprnia 97360.
fjc Division, City of Thousand
list is growing! It is further hoped that the
State and Federal Departments of Transportation will also utilize such data
in eventually adopting some uniform
standards for these "geometric features
of the roadways".
2;. ~s~~~~m~~~~~~~~p~~~~: e. cle- 11. "Responseof Vehideslo Pavement Undula- FgLG, Yigp"' 8 '. E. Bemardp universiv Of
12. "46th Street Speed Redudin Demonstra- tion". Washington. D.C.. Depactmenl of Transports- boo. Ma , 198,. 13. '&eed Undulations". City of Sacramento. California. July. 1981. 14. "Traffc Engineering in Sacramento". L M. Frink. Western I.T.E.. March-April. 1981. 15. "A hmpy Road Ahead?". C. Allen & L
16. "An Evalua!m of Speed Curtailing Bumps", A Turturici. Public Works. August, 1975.
Wifomia Supreme Court Case ~0.494166-0. Filed June 1. 1982.
J. P. Clem1 (F) is the Engineer 0' fic Engine€ sion for th Thousane California. ment holc Degree in References Walsh. Traffc Engineering. October. 1975. ing from
1. "Road HumDs for the Control of Vehicle State Polytechnic University, and Speeds". G. Wans. U.K. Oepartment of the Envi- rmment TRRL LR597.1973. tered Professional Engineer in 1)
2. '.S&ed Confrol Humps in Cuddbsdon Wa California with licenses in both cib fic Engineering. Cowley. Oxford', R. Sumner 8 J. Burlon 8 z: 17. -Rumford v. atY of Berketey, California-,
.. . . - - ___ - - - .
(-
0 0 .-
0
.
*
\ LIST OF CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS WITH ROAD BUMPS ON PUBLIC STREETS
JULY 1983 e
Jurisdiction Contact Phone Number
Warren Siecke (91 6) 449-5307
2. City of Claremont Ismi le Noovlaksh (714) 624-4531
(714) 736-2279
4. City of Pasadena David Barnhart (21 3) 577-4230
7. City of Brea
Gi 1 bert Calzada 3, City of Corona
5. City of Placentia - . John Garcia - (714) 993-81'31
6. City of Sacramento Richard Folkers (916) 449-5307
Terry Little (916) 440-5966
(415) 577-3411
Wayne Tanda (408) 277-5341
10. City of Santa Monica Ray Davis (21 3) 393-9975
11. City of Santa Rosa Basil Andrews (707) 576-5141
7, County of Sacramento
8. City of San Leandro Dan Arre 1 1 ano
9. City of San Jose
ext, 227
12. City of Thousand Oaks John Clement (805) 497-.8611 ext. 243 %J ColsOdrSpa
CAN ARl tw
s\m\ V/LL€S(
0
0 e $*
'1
-
I
\ LIST OF CALIFORNIA AGENCIES
CONSIDERING USE OF ROAD BUMPS .
JULY 1983
1. P1 acervi 1 le Michael Foster (916) 626-0606
2. West Covina David Nelson (213) 962-8631
3. Capitola Craig French (408) 475-7300
(ext. 436)
4, Marysvi 1 le Bill Frye (Tech) (916) 741-6421
5. Maywood Matt Binder (213) 996-2161
(Yuba County)
6. Saratoga Erman Dorsey (408) 867-3438 7. Pittsburg Detlef Curtis (415) 439-4915 8. Cudahy Matt Binder (213)- -996-2161 9. Pismo Beach ACE. Johnson (805 1 -773-4655 10. Duarto Dwight French (27 3) 921 -5321 11. Dixon Ron Tribbett (91 6) 678-2326 12. Bell Gardens Tom Brohard (213) 921-8215 13. La Habra Heights John Maulding (21 3) 921 -821 5 14. County of Sonoma Larry Pol 1 and (707) 527-2231
15. Corcoran Ron Hughes (209) 992-2151 16. Modesto D.J. Carmody (209) 577-5297 17. Benicia Charles Vosicka (707) 745-0510
18. Burl ingame Thomas Moore (415) 342-8931
20. Alameda County Raymond Burnham (41 5) 881 -6476
21. Culver City John Lathrop (213) 921-5791 22. Rosevi 11 e Larry Page1 (916) 783-9151
23. Oakland (Naval Public Sam Dyson (415) 466-2263
24. San Francisco Bill Marconi (41 5) 558-3608 25. San Luis Obispo Allen Tilton (805) 541-1000
9
Public Works
(ext. 40)
19. Nevada City Roger Northern (916) 265-1411
Public Works
ext. 222)
Works Center
3
e e
Chvl&~ud Vzlhgo hve Etm) I- 01 m la
s oLnn.3
Chestnut
I
SpacingBetweenhuumpsapp. 500'
Existing 85% Speed: 44 mph
Existing Speed Limit: 25 mph
Height of hump: 3 in
Length of hump: 12 feet
Tamarack
The City of Sanego ,'
NAGER'§ EPORT
rG
rfl * r
DATE ISSUED: March 21, 1990 REPORT NO. 90-141
ATJENTION : T&LU Committee Agenda of March 26, 1990
SUBJECT :
REFERENCE:
The Use of "Speed liurnps" on City Streets
Cormi ttee Consul tarit helysis T&LU 90-3
SUMMARY
Issue - Should the Council direct the City Manager to develop a Council Policy for the installation of "Speed Humps" on City Streets?
Kanager's Reconmendaxion - nirect the City Manager to conduct a test of the
effect of Speed Humps on two City streets to develop a recommended practice, and if appropriate, a drzft Council Policy based on the test rssults, and tc
/-%,
\, IJ
explore methods of financing the installation.
Other Recommendations - None.
Fiscal Im act - Approximately $12,000 for installation of Road Rumps at th'G + ocations This would be funded from the FY l.91 Annuzl Allocation for Road- way Channelization.
BACKGROUND
In a Memorandum dated October 30, 1989, Councilmember Pratt requested that the Transportation cnd Land Use Committee consider the possibility of using speed
humps as a means to control speeding and reduce traffic OE residential streets. Councilmgmber Pratt mentioned that the City of Thousand Oaks has successfully used them to control the speed of vehicles, and that such devices could save money by reducing the need for heavy and costly police enforcement.
tee Consultant's Analysis dated January 8, 1990 recommended that the City Man-
ager review the information on speed humps, and develop a Council Policy for
The Commit-
their installation based on that analysis.
a
2
0
DISCUSSION
Speed humps ar2 pavement undulations used for the purpose of reducing speed,
They are raised areas in the pavement surface extending across the traveled way typically 3-inches in height and 12-feet in length.
limited use on public streets in the United States, but have been used more widely in Europe and in other countries.
ple of a "speed hump." It should be noted that a speed hump is very different than a speed bump in that the speed bumps are short (1- to 3-fOOt) sections the;
are commonly foufid in shoppins centers and other private drives.
Staff reviewed studies of speed humps conducted in the Cities of Brea, CA; Sac-
ramento, CA; Thousand Oaks, CA; Pasadena, CA; and Phoenix, AZ, as we71 as re-
ports of studies conducted worldwide OR the same subject. In addirion, staff reviewed reports issued by the California Traffic Control Devices Ccrmmittee and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) on the effectiveness of speed humps as speed control devices.
Pasadena and discussed the progress of their program, and inspected some of the
existing installations.
Althouah many California cities are using the speed huvxs, they have not been
classified as "official tr6ffic contrF?-dfevlces'1,bx-arle considered to be
"roadway design features." Also, there is no official policy for their in-
stallation in the State Traffic Manuol. The California 'Vehicle Code (Section 440) describes "official traffic control devices'' as "arry sign, signzl, marking, or device, consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a
warning, or guidina traffic, but does not include island!;, curbs, traffic barri- ers, or other roadway design features." Therefore, speed hunps arz considered experimental at this time in the State of California.
21400 of the Vehicle Code also establishes the procedures to be followed by the
Department of Transportation ir: order to establish stzcdiirds and specifications
for traffic cor,trol devices."
While there has .been a wide variety of shapes tested, cii-cular and ptirabolic arcs have been more commonly used, and there have been no significant differ- ences noted while using either of the above-mentioned sh<ipes.
Effect on Speed
There is unanimous consensus among all agencies that have studied the undula- tions 'in the fact that they do effectively decrease the prevailing speeds at
.yarying degrees depending on their height.
spread throughout the entire length of a road by spacing the undulations follow-
ficant amounts of traffic to adjacent roads.
had little or no effect on the average sound levels on the roads that were
tested, and in some instances, the average noise level wtis actually reduced when the daily traffic was reduced.
They have been installed in
See enclosed Figure 1 showing an exam-
7-
Staff met with Traffic Engineers in the City of
public body or official haviiig juri.sdiction, for the purpose of requlating,
Incidentally, Section
Ih e decrease in speed can be evenly
ing a specific formula. In addition, studies also show that they divert signi- They have iilso been found to have
t,
0 a
3
-. r"
Effect on Traffic Volume
They've been found to divert some traffic to adjacent parzllel streets but ths
actual amount of traffic diversion depends on the flow conditions of that parti
cular area's street system.
Effect on Traffic Safety
There has been no proven direct effect of the undulations on traffic safety.
Eowever, in most ot the cases studied, the speed humps we installed in low vol- ume residential streets where there was no significant accident hisTGFj?7Ti--
fact, a high accident rate has nct been the criteria for their instznation in
these studies. It should be noted that there usually-are a combination of fac-
tors including speeding that contribute to a pattern of zccidents at a particu- lar location. accidents.
b!hile there has been only a few cases where the road humps have been questioned
in a court of law, there is still not enough evidence to demonstrate conclu- sively what overall effects these pavement features have on traffic safety.
Kost municipalities currently using bumps consider them experimental, and in
some cases, such as the City of Pasadena, the project is currently on hold.
There has been a somewhat uncontrolled proliferation lof the bumps in the Pasa- dena example where the basic warrants established for their installation have been cverridden in sone cases. It should be understoad that installatioh made against a City's own standards could increase the risk of successful litigation
against the City.
Effect on Emergency Vehicles
Significant delays may be experienced by fire trucks, other emergency vehicles, buses, and large trucks when driving over the undulations. The reason for this is that they must pass over the undulations at relatively low speeds, under 20
mph, or else significant jolts to the vehicle, discomfort to occupants, and jostling of cargc will be experienced. It should'be noted that trucks and buse experience more dramatic effects since they are required to reduce their speeds at levels significantly lower than other smaller vehicles due to their longer
wheelbase.
However, speeding in and of itself does not necessarily cause
cost -
The direct cost of speed humps was found to range fron $500 t~ 51,200 depending
on the geograpnic location and source of tunaing. Havance signing and painting
is required, but their cost is minimal.7here is also additional engineering staff time required to implement the program. may be from a risk management stand point.
Sources of funding vary from assessment districts to CIP funding. palities use both.
They have had a very large number of requests, and their CIP allocation has
It is not known how costly they
Some munici- The City of Pasadena funds the installations through CIP's.
-
0
4
increased to approximately one-hundred thousand for the last fiscal year. City of Phoenix uses the assessment district, and they have received very few requests through this type of funding.
Warrants
In its 1989 publication, Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, ITE - listed the following "Desirable design and location features."
The
Furthermore, most municipalities have warrants that are derived from the ones listed belolr!.
o In gofile the undulation should have a Qenerally circular arc cross
section on a 12-foot (3.541) chord with a maximum midpoint heiaht of 3 inches (7.5 cm) and an allowable constructior tolerance of plus or minus 0.5 inch (1.2 crn).
4-inch (10 cm) vblue recornvended in early research reports.) The undu
latior, should extend across thcl roadway with the 12st 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 1.0 m) tapered so thlat it becomes flush with the gutter pzn to main-
(This recommended height is less than the
tain drainage flows.
o Undulations should be placed singly. Closely spaced pairs, though
utilized successfully by some jurisdictions, do not appear an:' Fore or
less effective than single undulations.
Undulztions should be spaced zpproximately 550 feet (165 in) or less apart.
Undulations should be placed at least 20C feet (60 m) away from inter- sections and sharp horizontal curves and be otherwise loczted so they are clearly visible for at least 2CO feet (60 VI.
Specific positioning of undulations should consider access to utili- ties, driveway locations, and existing illumination.
The undulations should be marked with warning sigfis at the device and
pavement rnessoges in advance.
plates, double yellow centerline marking in the vicinity of the undula-
tion, and pavement markings on the device are optional.
o
o
o
o
Advance-warning sicns, advisory speed
o Unfortunately, major and collector streets which are residential in character are those on which traffic speed is a significant issue. However, undulations should not be utilized on these classes of streets
because the level of restraint they impose is inconsistent with the functional purpose of the streets.
Undulatioris should not be used on grades greater than 5 percent.
Undulations should not be placed on primary emergency vehicle access/ egress routes nor cx important transit routes.
o
o
0 e
' _- 4
5 I.
6:;- - i..;.;;. i' :
.- CONCLUSION
B?;ed on current experience and research "Speed Humps" have been found to be effective devices used to reduce the prevailing speeds on streets classified as residential and/or local. They will, however, affect emergency vehicles' abil-
ity to cross over them.
Staff recommends that a test program be initiated in order to assess their ef-
fect on city streets as it relates to traffic safety. The recommended location
for installing the bumps should meet not only all the features listed above but
the test sites must also be on unclassified streets typically carrying traffic volumes less than 3,000 ADT. We estimate that the direct cost for insta1:ation
arid removal of the devices on two streets would be approxirriately S12,OOG.
After a period of approximately six months after their installation, staff WOCrl'
prcvide a stztus report to this committee oli the possibility of continuing or
endinc; the program based on those findinss.
ALTERNATIVES
1.
. ... -.. .
..
Clirect the City Manager to develop a Council Policy for the installation of Speed Humps without a testing period. This is not recommended because they continue to be considered experimental by the State--of California.
@1:rect the City Manager to not implement the test, but to continue the re-
search on "Road Bumps", and to advise this committee when more conclusive
fir;dings become available based on the experiences of neighboring rnunicipal-
ities. Given the relative success experienced by other municipalities, we believe thzt there may be certain conditions under which these devices can he successfully uti1 ized. lieu of this alternative.
(5,?,; ,.:.-: :L'
2.
. i- .. -
We, therefore, recommend a testing program in
Respectfully submi tted,
m
Severo Esquivel / Deputy City Manager --..
ROLL I ?;*SER/JLL
ATTACHMENT
Figure 1 - Sketch of "Road Bump"
* !. \. .-:. "a _/
0- >- a Q.
z
0
Ln
-
-
w
E
>- m
W
b
Q
0
n
a >
4.
- z 0 a -
\ /
W
(z
, ,
REFLECTIVE T -
1ZU REFLECTIVE WHITE STRIPES @ 6' 0.c.
>.
___ - -
I_
WARNING Fl FEE , ]Tl<A.C. ?.'WAX, 12' TAW? STA
VA%ES)
OZ-AR-40W -tLIzI+ TXX COAT
SECTION AA - lJJqncl,!AT,ou flFT,A I\ 7 - i> SFEED HUMPS SHALL )\KIT EE FLACED OVER MANHOLE,
> a
W
I- U
0 -
WATERGATES, JUKTlON CYANZEFS, Ric. 2)EOGE OF SFctEil HUMP %ULC €E 5 FEET MINIMUM FROM EDGE OF DZlVEWAY. 9 UHEMEVER FES16LE SFEED HUWS SHALL EE PLACED AT FROPERTY LINES IElSTEnD OF M1D-LOT. 4) WHEhJEVER POSSIBLE SPEED HUbtFs SHALL BE PLACED
ADJACENT TO STREET LIGHTS.
SIGN LOCkT IOSS.
DIRECTED 5f Ek
aN-~a~7+q~S!8 QF- ~ HUMP CROSS SE ~3f5cu"CwlJkJJn 0r;G YCTIOA ""y/Tij{ littii u WP+ I i id ! 4 c I I r-1 12'
ire biry WI aawlego
1
(a MANAGER'S REPORT
4
DATE ISSUED: September 19, 1990 REPORTNO. 90-401
ATTENTION: T&LU Committee Agenda of September 2 4, 19 9 0
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE: T&LU Report No. 90-141
Proposed Locations for Experimental "Speed Humps" on City Streets ,
SUMMARY
Issue - Should ~Qeed humps be installed as proposed by the City Manager to study the;
effects on travel speeds?
ManaPer's Recommendation - Approve the proposed test locations.
Other Recommendations - None.
Fiscal Impact - Approximately $12,000 for the installation of 13 speed humps at the
proposed two locations.
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 1990, the City Manager presented a preIiminary study of speed humps to the
Transportation and Land Use Committee. The City Manager recommended that speed hump:
be studied on City streets to assess their traffic impact. This recommendation was based on the
experiences of other municipalities that have successfully used speed humps to reduce vehicula
speeds and direct through traffic off of local residential streets. The T&LU Committee directed
the City Manager to select two locations appropriate for the study.
0
2
t e
* *.
DISCUSSION
The Traffic Engineering Division has received many requests for installation of speed humps on
for the speed hump study.
After studying these streets, it is staff's recommendation that speed humps be installed on
and on Granada Avenue between Upas Street and North Park Way in the North Park area. Both
of these streets are currently classified as local residential streets. In addition to slowing down
traffic, a secondary effect of speed humps is the diversion of through traffic to adjacent classified
t!!rough streets. Motorists using Granada Avenue as a through street are expected to divert to
30th Street, which is the preferred route. In the case of Westbrook Avenue, traffic is not
expected to be diverted to adjacent streets because the traffic on Westbrook Avenue is local
residential from the immediate vicinity. These two streets were selected based on the following
facts:
City streets. Staff has evaluated conditions on these streets to determine the optimal locations
Westbrook Avenue between Spring Oak Way and Anmine Drive in the South Bay Terraces arm;
1.
2. Both streets are residential.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A history of speeding problems with an 85th percentile speed over 34 mph.
Geometric design; free of sharp horizontal curves within the limits of the study.
Good safety record with few speed related accidents.
Minimal variations in street grade within the limits of the study.
Overall conditions indicate that these two streets are optimal locations to gather
data for this study.
<
Traffic Engineers will coordinate the installation of speed humps with the community group
representing the affected neighborhoods prior to their installation. In addition, all residents on
the subject streets will be notified pnor to the installation of the speed humps. Appropriate
warning signs and pavement markings will be installed to alert motorists of their presence.
Before and after the installation of the speed humps, studies will be conducted, inchding speed
surveys, traffic volumes analysis, accident pattern analysis, and residents' acceptance through
an "after" survey, not only on Westbrook Avenue and Granada Avenue, but also on the adjacent
streets. We will also study the effects speed humps have on emergency vehicles, trucks and
motorcycles. It is anticipated that the speed humps will be installed within 120 days of approval
of this report. These studies will allow the engineers to compare and determine if the traffic
conditions have indeed improved due to the changes implemented on the road.
CONCLUSION
The locations recommended for the testing of speed humps will provide the optimal conditions
to fully assess their impact and benefit on City streets. Staff will report back to the T&LU
I e * e 3
Committee six months after installation of the speed humps with final recommendations 01
continuation of the program. If appropriate, staff will develop a draft Council Policy for thr
criteria for the installation of sped humps. Staff will also identify potential methods of fundin,
future installations.
*.' ,.
ALTERNATIVE
Direct the City Manager to test the speed humps at different locations, or to abandon the tes
program.
Respectively submitted,
K&Ji-Y*
Severo Esquivel
Deputy City Manager
ROLLINGEWJLL
ATTACHMEhTS - Sketch of proposed locations for Speed Humps
.-
a me e 2- 3 a, North Park Way
Approximate “speed hump locations
a Park area a, >
-a*
,C ‘ al’ong Granada Avenue in the North
a 3 Gunn Street z u)
7 (D m ct
ct cc 3 c a
Landis Streei
Spacing between humps app 400 ft
Existing 85% speed 38 mph
Existing speed limit 25 rnph
Height of hump 3 in (HI
Length of hump 12 ft (L)
Typical sign location
Typical Speed Hump location
Upas Street Atachment 1
a
I a er --- An ?e Drive
*=
*b '
Seabrook lane
Shadewcod Lane
Spacing between humps: app 400 ft.
Existing 85% speed. 35 mph
Existing speed limit. 25 mph
Height of hump: 3 in,
Length Of hump: 1 2 It. Sherbrook Street
Grove View Road
Typical sign location
Montcli f f Road Typical speed hump location
*t Attachment 2
e 0 -' "-7 - F
,6 .
31 flay, /991
flUyOR LeWid
/2OO ELm Ave. catidbud, [A, 7200~
Deun Muyon lewi~:
On Tuehduy, j'une. //, ut 6PM the CunL~lud Citg Council. wiLL ne
the upped o{ the Sufety Comminnionn necommendat ion, ReLutive
the npeeding pnobLem un Pontiuc DRLV~.
Z wiLL le in Onunp County on j'une /I,
1 huve Lived ut 3558 Pontiuc Dnive dince /979.
thud thin Letten.
Being Refined,
huve witnenned numenoun If neun uccidentn" of neighbonn attempt
to buck out of thein dnivewuyn,
to 50 mile pen houtt npeedetn
The cunve~ on PoniLac dL~ve, denLen olnenvat~on Ly Lo& the A
und the JzomeowneR and muken npeedn OV~R 25 MPh' hu~u~doun.
The necent PoLice Depuntment uttention to the pnoblem in appn
howeveit Z have neen no impnovement of the pnobLem. Lately Z /?
noticed u numben o{ npeedenn between the hounn o{ 6-7:30 pfl.,
pnimundy in u South to Alonth dinection.
/hem UR~ nix young childnen in OUR nhont bLock. A child woul
LittLe cXunce o{ LLURVLVUL ut the pnenent duy npeedn on Pontia
und uttempting to uvoid the 4
-
P0ntiGt.C DRiVe in U diAULLteR WUiting to eRUpt. We ReAidenfL ha
Xud tweLve I1 Lucky yeunn II . Duily the tnu{{ic Lecomnheuvien un
mote neckleu-.
Joua Council. munf take skin nuhject ~ee~.uunLy betone you find
You lecorne digzutueen. to Leftenn u{ dymputhy.
1,- iE $43 78 *J
IO ~~~~~~ eRt E. 6 ' -#' on f+ifl"m cnn
flUiOR UshC Ret.
3558 Pontiuc DR.
f6/9/ 434-3521
k -47/
r74 +/lM/ 0 0 ,a
\ I-- -’ Y
Presented by:
Chestnut Hills
Community Ac.tion
Group
PROPOSED RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
Institute of Transportation Engineers
525 School Street, S.LJ.
Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 30024-2719 USA
BmLu?u
4- Lac :
Lb I -- ,-I - 1
s- ?- e. I
0 0 m
'1
4. -1
STANDAFB ITE METRIC CONVERSIONS
During the service life of this document, use of the metric system in t
United States is expected to expand. The following common factors represe
the appropriate magnitude of conversion. The quantities given in U.
customary units in the text, tables, and figures represent a precision lev
that, in practice, typically does not exceed two significant figures.
making conversions, it is important to not falsely imply a greater accuracy
the product than existed in the original dimension or quantity. Howeve
certain applications, such as surveying, structures, curve off s
calculations, etc., may require great precision. Conversations for su
purposes are given in parentheses.
Area - Length
1 inch = 25 mm (millimeters--25.4) 1 square inch = 6.5 cm (6.41
1 inch = 2.5 cm (centimeters--2.54) 1 square foot = 0.09
(0.0929)
1 foot = 0.3 m (meters--0.3048) 1 square yard = 0.84 m (0.8'
(hectares--0.405)
1 mile = 1.6 km (kilometers--1.61)
2
2
0.4 - 1 yard = 0.91 m (0.914) 1 acre -
I
Volume Mass
1 cubic inch = 16 ~m~~(16.39) 1 Ounce = 28 gm (gram--28.34
1 cubic foot = 0.028~ (0.02831) 1 pound = 0.45 kg (kilograms.
I cubic yard = 0.77m (0.7645) 0.454)
1 quart = 0.95L (liter--0.9463) 1 ton = 900 kg (907)
1 gallon = 3.8 L (3.785)
f>
Speed Light
foot/sec. = 0.3 m/s (0.3048) 1 footcandle = 11 lu3 (lume
miles/hour = 1.6 km/h (1.609) per m---J,0.8
(Sandelas pe
mc-- 3 - 426)
I footlambert = 3.4 cd/m-
Temperature
To convert OF (Fahrenheit) to "C (Celsius),
subtract 32, then divide by 1.8.
For other units refer to the American Society of Testing Matetials (1916 F
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103) Standard for Metric Practice, E380.
0 0 e
k. ..
CONTENTS
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR THE
DESIGN AND APPLICATION OF SPEED HUMPS
P1
LIST OF FIGURES
FOREWORD
1-00 INTRODUCTION ...........................
1.01 Purpose.. ........................
1.02 Speed Humps Versus Speed Bumps ..............
1.03 Previous Research and Experience .............
1.04 Conclusions ............ .I. ..........
1.05 Use of Guidelines .....................
2.00 GUIDELINES FOR SPEED HUMP USE ..................
2.01 Engineering Study .....................
2.02 Street Classification and Use ............... 2.03 Street Width and the Number of Lanes ...........
2.04 Street Grades .......................
2.05 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment .............
2.06 Sight Distance ......................
2.07 Traffic Speeds ......................
2.08 Traffic Volumes ......................
2.09 Traffic Safety ......................
2.10 Vehicle Mix ........................
2.11 Emergency Vehicle Access .................
2.12 Transit Routes ...................... 1
2.13 Citizen Support ...................... 1
3.00 COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ........ 1
3.01 Supporting Ordinances and Regulations ........... 1
3.02 Staff Evaluation ..................... 1
3.03 Coordination Procedures .................. 1 3.04 Speed Hump Request Procedures ............... 1
3.05 Removal Procedures .................... I
3.06 Cost ........................... 1
v 0
L
. 'I
PAGI
4.00 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .............. 11
4.01 Dimensions and Cross-Sections ............... 11
4.02 Spacing and Location ................... 13
4.03 Traffic Control ...................... 17
4.04 Installation Angle .................... 18
4.06 Roadway Edge Treatments .................. 18
4.07 Coordination with Street Geometry ............. 22
4.09 On-Street Parking ..................... 22
4.10 Streetlighting ...................... 22
4.11 Construction Materials .................. 22
4.12 Construction Procedures .................. 22
4.05 Drainage ......................... 18
4.08 Coordination with Traffic Operations ........... 22
5.00 MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................... 23
5.01 On-Site Observation .................... 23
5.02 Speed Studies ....................... 23
5.03 Volume Studies ........... t .......... 24
5.04 Stop Sign Obedience .................... 24
5.05 Travel Time Studies .................... 24
5.06 Accident Analysis ..................... 24
5.07 Resident and Driver Surveys ................ 24
5.08 Noise Analysis ...................... 24
5.09 Vibration Analysis .................... 25
5.10 Pedestrian. Bicycle. and Social Activity ......... 25
5.11 User Cost Analysis .................... 25
5.12 Vehicle Emission Analysis .................. 35
6.00 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ....................... 25
6.01 Liability Concerns .................... 1-5
6.02 Vehicle and Cargo Damage ................. 26
6-03 Coordination with Pedestrian Crossings .......... 26
6.04 Aesthetic Considerations ................. 26
6.05 Incorporation in New Street Design ............ ?h
6.07 Maintenance Issues .................... 2;
7.00 SOURCE MATERIALS ......................... 28
6.06 Enforcement Needs ..................... 16
e 5
*
1'
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR THE
DESIGN AND APPLICATION OF SPEED HUMPS
This recommended practice was developed and approved in ac
formally adopted Institute procedures which are designed to he;
received has been considered in order that the recommended practice WOI
represent the best consensus obtainable on the state-of-the-art at the time
approval.
This report was developed by an TTE Special Task Force appointed in July 1'
by the Technical Council. Members of the Task Force were:
all interested parties are given opportunities to provide inpu - 111
David E. Barnhart, P.E. (M)
Richard F. Beaubien, P.E. (F)
Bert Beukers, P.E. (F) Ian C. Boyd, P.E. (F)
Howard R. Chapman, P.E. (F)
John P. Clement, P.E. (F)
Charles E. DeLeuw, Jr. (M)
R. Marshall Elizer, Jr., P.E. Chairman (F)
William E. Haro, P.E. (M) I
Jim Jarvis (A)
William R. McGrath, P.E. (H)
Kenneth Melston, P.E. (F)
Jere E. Meredith, P.E. (F)
Andrew P. O'Brien (M)
Sheldon I. Pivnik (F)
Thornas A. Sohrweide, P.E. [A)
Burton W. Stephens
Roy L. Sumner [M)
Douglas W. Wiersig (A)
This report was reviewed by Department 5 of the ITE Technical Counci.
?embers of the Technical Council Department 5 Standing Committee <
Transportat ion Design at the time this report was approved wert
The Chairman of the Technical Council was and the Vic
Chairman was
Certain individual volunteer members of the Institute recommended practic
developing bodies are employed by Federal agencies, other governmenta
offices, private enterprise, or other organizations. Their participation i
the Institute recommended practice developing activities does not constitut
government agency or other organization endorsement of any of the Institut
recommended practice developing bodies or any Institute recommended practice
which are developed by such bodies.
Any suggestions for revisions to this recommended practice or appeals shoul
be submitted to the ITE Director of Technical Affairs: Institute o
Transportation Engineers; 525 School Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20034.
f 0 e. . . ..
FOREWORD
Until the 1970's the effects of motor vehicle traffic on the quality of UI
residential environments were largely neglected as a serious transportal
problem. In the past decade, however, a number of converging forces 1
increasingly brought these effects to the attention of both citizens and 1(
transportation officials. Many local governments are finding themselves UI
intense pressure to reduce the speed and volume of traffic on neighbor1
streets to address both real and perceived safety and quality of life issue
Increasing levels of automobile ownership, smaller household size, longer t
lengths, poorly designed residential street systems, and under-desig
arterial roadways in urban areas are some. of the factors contributing
continued traffic growth and vehicular intrusion in residential areas. At
same time, capital shortages, rising construction costs, and environmen
concerns are concurrently limiting the future expansion of the transportat
facilities necessary to address these problems and continually increas
needs. As a result, congestion on arterial streets is increasing in II
urban and suburban areas and more traffic is diverting to local resident
streets to bypass congestion. In some cities, street systems are incompl
or have been poorly planned resulting in local residential streets being
only facilities available to serve collector and traffic movement functio
Whatever the reason, increased traffic volumes and speeds along lo
residential streets often prompt citizen concerd and protest, even wh
traffic vcilumes are not particularly large.
Residential traffic problems can obviously take a variety of forms.
following categories of problems or issues are those most often heard w
dealing with neighborhood traffic concerns.
Traffic Safety -- The occurrence of accidents, and more frequer,
the fear or expectation that accidents or near-accidents may occ
is often a leading problem. Much citizen sensitivity to traf
. .stems from a desire for safer streets. In some cases these stre!
.serve as primary pedestrian routes for school children which rei
to amplify these concerns.
. Traffic Speed -- Excessive speed is a frequent resident complaii
In some cases, the speed of the majority of vehicles is a prob
while in other cases it is only a few "fast" drivers. The negat
reaction to speed is often a translation of concern over safetv I
high noise levels. Vehicles driven at high-speed, even if 01
occasional, are seen as an insult by thoughtless drivers to
peace, quiet, safety and quality of life within the neighborhood.
. Traffic Volumes -- The total amount of traffic is another frequ,.
cause of residential complaints. As with speed, complaints ab(
high volume are often a reflection that speed and safety issues a:
exist.
s 0 0
,.
Noise, Vibration and Air Pollution -- These are aspects affect
the basic quality of neighborhood life. While less visible
quoted than the previous problems, these concerns can be signific
of larger andlor older vehicles, if street curvature is severe,
if the pavement has a rough surface.
Traffic Source -- In most cases, "through'' traffic is the source
resident complaints although quite often the problem lies G
traffic generated by area residents.
Traffic Composition -- Certain types of traffic are also pr
causes of annoyance, especially trucks, buses, and motorcycles wt
create more noise, fumes, vibrations and are perceived n
hazardous than automobiles.
Reduction of Street Activities and Social Activities -- When traf
volume, speed, and large vehicle mix increase, the desire
residents to meet and converse on the street is reduced. Similax
the comfort level of parents to allow children to play in fr
yards and on sidewalks is reduced. Other physical activities E
particularly if major percentages of the traffic stream are made
as walking and jogging are also affected.
Impacts on Land Use -- The presence 1 of excessive traffic
discourage residential land uses and leads to increased resic
turnover and neighborhood instability although this is not alk
the case. There is also some evidence that streets with gre;
auto accessibility may be more susceptible to residential crime.
Appearance, Identity, and Maintenance -- Excessive traffic L
often detract from the more positive features of a neighborf
thereby affecting the neighborhood identity and cohesion which
reduce some residents' incentive to maintain their properties.
While proper subdivision planning and residential street design are the n
effective methods of avoiding residential traffic problems, these goals
not always achievable. Where problems exist traffic management programs t
been successfully demonstrated as effective strategies for addres:
residential safety and quality of life issues. They remain, however
Certain techniques and strategies appropriate and successful in one particr
neighborhood may not be appropriate in a different setting. In many case:
successful neighborhood traffic management program is dependent more on put
participation and consensus building than on the particular traffic cont
techniques used. While neighborhood streets are typically public property
thus belong to everyone, most residents feel an "ownership" of their strf
and therefore take vocal exception to outside and discourteous drivers.
Traffic management strategies employed to address residential traffic conct
can generally be assigned to four basic categories:
challenging task from an engineering, political, and institutional standpoi
1. Establishing and enforcing general laws and ordinances pertaininj
speed limits, intersection control, and parking regulations. '
strategy should generally be the first used to attempt to SI
evolving neighborhood concerns.
C 0 0
r
%
2. Installing traffic control devices that provide specific regulato
warning, or guide messages to motorists. These should be u
judiciously and in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traf
Control Devices.
3. Installing geometric design features that manage the physi
movement of vehicles or pedestrians within the roadway or withi
neighborhood. These should be used as a remedial technique o
when the above methods have proven ineffective.
4. Educating residents to better understand the causes of traf
problems, potential solutions to those problems, and
advantages/disadvantages of implementing these solutions. 'I
strategy should be pursued any time neighborhood concerns are be
addressed.
This recommended practice provides guidelines for the design and applicat
of speed humps, a roadway geometric design feature intended to physica
reduce vehicle speeds. Other types of geometric design features that are
addressed in this document but could be considered in a residential traf
management program are raised intersections, rumble strips, chokers, traf
circles, median barriers, diverters, forced-turn channelization,
cul-de-sacs. These features are designed to attradt special attention, red
vehicle speeds, and/or physically restrict-or prevent vehicle movement alon
roadway or within a neighborhood. Geometric design features should genera
be installed only after less restrictive actions have been considered, and
no event should their use be intended to allow or encourage the use of pub
streets as playgrounds.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers has recognized the need for pro\
ing transportation professionals and community leaders with strategies
techniques for creating compatible relationships between residential neight
hoods and streets. In an attempt to address that need the Institute
developed Residential 'Street Design and Traffic Control, a book that fk
discusses the history and causes of residential traffic problems. It provj
information that will hopefully assist the transportation professional
understanding and finding solutions to those problems.
0 e
*
1.00 INTRODUCTION
1.01 Purpose
The purpose of this recommended practice is to provide guideli
for the design and application of speed humps which
considered to be a technique to control vehicular traffic spe
along a roadway. They consist of raised pavement constructed
placed in, on and across or partly across a roadway. For
a roadway geometric design feature whose primary purpose is
reduce the speed of vehicles traveling along that roadway. Wh
such as traffic diversion, that is not their primary inter
purpose.
purposes of this recommended practice, speed humps are defined
there may be' certain side effects to speed hump installati
1.02 Speed Humps Versus Speed Bumps
A speed "hump" is a raised area in the roadway pavement suri
extending transversely across the travel way (see Figure I.
Sometimes called pavement undulations or "sleeping policeme
speed humps normally have a maximum height of three to f
inches with a travel length of approxhnately twelve feet.
A speed "bump" is also a raised pavement area across a roac
and generally has a height of three to six inches with a ler
of one to three feet (see Figure 1.1). Speed bumps are typic:
found on private roadways and parking lots and do not tend
exhibit consistent design parameters from one installation
another.
SPEED SPEED HUMP
BUMP
Figure 1.1
. I) -2- e
*
From an operational standpoint, humps and bumps .have critica
different impacts on vehicles. Within typical residential sp
ranges, humps create a gentle vehicle rocking motion that cau
some driver discomfort and results in most vehicles slowing
near 15 m.p.h. at each hump and 25 to 30 m.p.h. between prope
spaced humps in a system. At high speeds the hump can act a
"bump" and jolt the vehicle's suspension and its occupants
cargo. A bump, on the other hand, causes significant dri
discomfort at typical residential speeds and generally results
vehicles slowing to 5 m.p.h. or less at the bump. At high spe
suspension quickly absorbs the impact before the vehicle body
react. In general, bicycles, motorcycles, and other vehic
with rigid or near-rigid suspensions are more susceptible
damage and loss of control from humps than vehicles with flexi
suspensions. However, speed humps represent a lesser risk
those vehicles than do speed bumps.
Speed humps have the advantage of being largely self-enforc
and of creating a visual impression, real or imagined, tha
street is not intended for speeding or "through" traffic. !
items to consider prior to speed hump installation are tl
initial construction and continuing maintenance costs,
potential negative impact on emerggncy and service vehic.
increases in vehicle noise, the imposition of inconvenient acc
to some parts of the neighborhood, and, to some, tl
appropriate for use at all hours of the day and night.
addition, it is mandatory that they be supported with :
combination of traffic control devices such as signs anc
pavement markings to warn motorists of their presence
indicate the expected and appropriate behavior.
Where designed and installed with proper planning and enginee
review, speed humps have generally been found to be effectivc
controlling vehicle speeds without increasing accident rates.
fact, some studies indicate that speed hump installstions
actually reduced accident rates on residential stre
Additionally, there is no evidence in the source nater
reviewed for this report indicating that properly designed
installed speed humps have caused or contributed to accident
increased accident rates.
Within the United States speed bumps of varying design have
routinely installed on private roadways and parking lots wit
the benefit of proper engineering study regarding their de
and placement. Speed humps, on the other hand, have evolved
extensive research and testing and have been designed to acl-
a specific result on vehicle operations without impc
unreasonable or unacceptable safety risks. The guidelines
speed humps as presented in this document are primarilv b
upon those experiences.
bumps tend to have less overall vehicle impact because
unsightliness. They are also static and therefore must
w 0
c -3- *
1.03 Previous Research and Experience
Speed humps were originally developed in the early 1970's by
Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) in Great Brita
TRRL first tested along a test track various hump signs
shapes on several vehicle types operating over a range of speel
From this work the "TRRL" parabolic profile hump was develop1
Since then speed humps have been extensively tested and used
Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand. The U.S. Fede
Highway Administration (FHWA) also performed "off-road'' test
of the TRRL humps in St. Louis in 1979 and deemed them safe
proceed with public street tests. In addition, an emerg
number of cities in the United States and Canada either use
have tested speed humps since the early 198O's, and in Novem
1983 a Subcommittee of the California Traffic Control Devi
Committee issued a final report which endorsed the prudent use
speed humps on public streets.
Recent research in Australia has developed an alternative des
to the "TRRL" profile humps developed in Great Britain.
Research Board (ARRB) have yielded observations and rest
similar to their English counterparts. The flat top section
usually constructed of brick paving' with asphalt or concr
ramps and has generally been found more aesthetically accepta
than non-brick treatments. This design tends to reduce
deformation problems experienced with asphalt humps 'but
increase vehicle noise and maintenance requirements.
The results of speed hump research and testing can be genera
summarized as follows:
- Traffic speeds are decreased at the humps and at locati
between properly spaced successive humps. Speeds of
fastest drivers are affected as well as those of "aver:
drivers. The speed distribution generally narrows with
greatest effect on higher vehicle speeds. Speed reducti
generally remain constant over time.
so-called "flat-topped" road humps tested by the Australian F
- A single hump will only act as a point speed control.
reduce speeds along an extended section of street a se
of humps is usually needed.
- Speed humps will often divert traffic to other stre
especially in those situations where a significant am
of traffic is using the street as a shortcut, detour
overflow from a congested collector or arterial road
Volume reductions are also affected by the number
spacing of humps and the availability of alterna
routes.
- Speed and volume modifications caused by humps tenc:
remain constant over time.
0. v
-4-
c
.. - Speed humps have not been found to pose a traffic sa
hazard when properly designed and installed at appropr
locations. In fact, accident experience generally rem
stable or decreases due to reduced speeds and vol
thereby improving the inherent safety of a partic street or residential area.
- Where humps are successful at reducing speeds, thert
probably little net change in road noise or possibly ev
reduction in noise levels. Traffic noise will gener
decrease with fewer vehicles and lower speeds, but n
may increase at the hump, particularly if signifi
numbers of trucks use the street.
- Adequate signing and marking of each speed hump
essential.
- The need to slow for speed humps tends to have a nega
impact on air quality and energy consumption assui
traffic volumes remain the same. For comparison purpo
this impact is typically less than the effects of a
sign installation.
- Large trucks, buses, and emerggncy vehicles must pass
humps at relatively low speeds or significant jolts to
vehicle, discomfort or injury to occupants, and jostlin
cargo will be experienced. Speed humps have been usel
deter trucks and larger vehicles from using partic
streets.
- The majority of local street residents will norm
support speed hump installations and endorse t
continued use.
'rt should be noted that some speed hump installations in
United States and other countries have proved unsuccessful
ultimately been modified or removed. Factors resulting in t.
removal have included the following:
- Residents' dissatisfaction over the "gentle" hunp de
(as opposed to the more drastic bump) and its perce
inability to dramatically slow vehicles or reduce tra
volumes to a desired level.
- Undesired traffic diversion to other residential street
- Aesthetics of the humps and associated signs and markin
- Increased noise level at the hump caused by vehicle roc
and acceleration/deceleration,
- Impacts on snow plowing and other Street mainten
functions.
e -5-
v
.
.: - Concerns with impacts to emergency vehicle response.
- Concerns over liability.
- Funding for the initial and continued maintenance costs
..
the hump and its traffic control devices.
The materials reviewed in the preparation of this report
listed in the "Source Materials" section of the report. '
list also includes documents that could not be obtained
speed hump user.
Table 1 is a list of those agencies identified in the SOL
materials that have tested or used speed humps as resident
traffic management devices.
review but may be of interest or assistance to the poteni
I
J ,w a
-6-
TABLE I
PARTIAL LISTING OF AGENCIES
WITH SPEED HUMP EXPERIENCE
United States and Canada
Phoenix, Arizona Jefferson County, Colorado
Agoura Hills, California Washington, D. C.
Brea, California Hillsborough County, Florida
Camarillo, California Orlando, Florida
Claremont, California Seminole County, Florida
Corona, California Tampa, Florida
Palo Alto, California Temple Terrace, Florida
Pasadena, California Titusville, Florida
Placentia, California Fulton County, Georgia
Sacramento, California Wichita, Kansas
Sacramento County, California Rockville, Maryland
San Jose, California Boston, Massachusetts
San Leandro, California Deephaven, Minnesota
San Luis Obispo, California St. Louis, Missouri
Santa Monica, California Omaha, Nebraska
Santa Rosa, California Columbus, Ohio
Simi Valley, California Toledo, Ohio
Thousand Oaks, California Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Westlake Village, California Dallas, Texas
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Bellevue, Washington
Toronto, Ontario, Canada Seattle, Washington
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Apple ton, Wisconsin
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Knternat ional
Australia Polland
Belgium Israel
Canada Japan
Finland New Zealand
France Norway
Germany South Africa
Great Britain Sweden
Research Agencies
Australian Road Research Board (ARRB)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, United States Department of
Netherlands Study Center for Traffic Engineering
Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Great Britain
Transportation)
0 w
-7-
1.04 Conclusions
A5 discussed above, extensive research and use throughout Gr
Britain, Australia, the United States, Canada and other countr
indicates that the use of a properly designed speed hump or sp
hump system, installed using the proper engineering analysis
judgment, can be a useful geometric design feature to man
traffic speeds on roadways intended to serve as local resident
streets. Speed humps have been found, in general, to red
traffic speed, volumes, and accidents depending on
site-specific circumstances of the installation. In additi
they discourage through traffic from using a local street as
alternative route to inconvenient or congested arterial i
collector systems. Despite concerns over liability , vehic
damage, and emergency vehicle impacts, these problems have I
occurred or have been found to be insignificant when consider
the positive aspects of humps. However, speed humps are not
cure-all for residential street traffic problems and should
applied only where sound engineering judgment justifies thc
use. Other passive and active devices and techniques should
considered and possibly tested to determine if less restrict:
concerns. Speed humps should not be considered an option to g(
residential planning and subdivision'street design, nor shot
they be used to convert streets to playgrounds or otherw:
encourage pedestrian activity in public streets.
The lack of guidance and heavy reliance on individual judgme
has led to hump-type installations that incorporated PC
designs, improper roadway geometric coordination, poor choice
construction materials, methods, and absence of needed signs i
markings. The safety of speed humps and their ability to perfc
their intended use is directly contingent upon their pro€
design and application. When it is determined that a resident]
traffic management problem exists and that speed humps are
appropriate technique to reduce or eliminate the problem, tf
ITE Recommended Practice will assist in the design :
application of those geometric design features.
forms of residential traffic management will address tht
1.05 Use of the Recommended Practice
This LTE Recommended Practice is to be used in conjunction w:
good engineering practice. These guidelines do not constitu
either final or complete design criteria for speed humps, spe
hump systems, or residential traffic management control prograir
Local conditions must be evaluated for all speed hL
installations. In addition, specific terrain, weather, traffi
or land use characteristics may require local modification
these guidelines. Other documents such as the ITE Recommenc
Guidelines for Subdivision Streets: A Recommended Practic
Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, and other standz
practice documents should be consulted as necessary.
a w
-8-
. t-
2.00 GUIDELINES FOR SPEED HUMP USE
2.01 Engineering Study
Speed humps should only be installed to address documented saf
or traffic concerns supported by traffic engineering studies,
after consideration of alternative traffic control measures.
Since speed humps may divert traffic to other street faciliti
an estimate of the amount and location of that diversion sho
be made so that the potential impacts of the proposed humps
be fully considered. If the humps are expected to create eq
or greater traffic problems on another residential street, t
should not be installed.
2.02 Street Classification and Use
Speed humps should only be installed on those roadway facilit
functionally classified as "local" streets as defined in A Pol
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets published by MSF
the American Association of State Highway and Transportat
Officials. These streets generally permit direct access
abutting lands, connect to higher clsssification streets, of
the lowest level of mobility, usually contain no bus routes,
deliberately discourage service to through traffic moveme
Further, these local streets should be generally residential
nature.
2.03 Street Width and Number of Lanes
Speed humps should typically be used only on streets with no n
than two travel lanes or where the overall pavement width is
greater than 40 feet. In addition, the pavement should have E
- surface and drainage qualities.
2.04 Street Grades
Speed humps should generally be used only on streets with grz
of 8% or less approaching the hump. When installed on strc
with significant downgrades, special care should be taken
ensure that vehicles will not approach the humps at excess
speed.
2.05 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
Speed humps should not be placed within severe horizontal
vertical curves that may result in substantial lateral
vertical forces on a vehicle traversing the hump. General
humps should be avoided within horizontal curves of less than
feet centerline radius and on vertical curves with less 1
minimum stopping sight distance. If possible, humps should
located on tangent rather than curve sections.
V 0 -9-
..
2.06 Sight Distance
Speed humps should generally generally only be installed wh
the minimum safe stopping sight distance (as defined in AASHT
A Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways) can
provided.
2.07 Traffic Speeds
Speed humps should generally only be installed on streets wt-
the posted or prima facie speed limit is 30 m.p.h. or lo
Speed humps should not be used on streets where the majority
vehicles travel at relatively fast speeds, e.g., 45 m.p.h.
greater.
When speed humps are installed to address speeding concer
studies should be performed to confirm the magnitude and ext
of the speeding problem to ensure that the installation of hu
can be expected to appreciably address that problem.
2 -08 Traffic Volumes
1
Speed humps should typically be installed only on streets with
average daily traffic volume of 3,000 vehicles or less. Gh
humps are sometimes installed on streets with higher volum
their use should receive special evaluation and justif icat
before approval.
2.09 Traffic Safety
When installed to address documented or anticipated vehicle
pedestrian accidents, the causes of those accidents should
susceptible to correction by speed humps.
2.10 Vehicle Mix
Speed humps should normally not be installed on streets t
carry significant volumes (greater than 57) of long wheel-b
vehicles unless there is a reasonable alternative route for tli
vehicles. Special consider~~tion should also he given
motorcycle, bicycle, and other types of special vehicles that
the street. The impacts that speed humps may have on th
individual vehicle types should be considered in the decision
install humps, and ultimately considered in their design
locat ion.
2.11 Emergency Vehicle Access
Speed humps should not be installed on streets that are defi
or used as primary or routine emergency vehicle access routes.
-- 7 * -10-
2.12 Transit Routes
Speed humps should generally not be installed along streets b
established transit routes. However, if humps are installed
transit routes their design should consider the spec
operational characteristics of these vehicles.
2.13 Citizen Support
When speed humps are installed in response to citizen requests
documented majority of the residents along the affected port
of that street should ideally support their installation.
3.00 COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
3.01 Supporting Ordinances and Regulations
Before initiating a speed hump installation program, agenc
should first adopt the appropriate policies, regulations, anc
ordinances to govern elements such as the community involven
process, hump design and locatio4 criteria, cost shar
relationships, installation and maintenance requirements,
evaluation/modification procedures.
3.02 Speed Hump Request Procedures
Resident surveys should be required to determine support
speed hump installation after it is determined that a partict
street is eligible for humps. Ideally, a, majority of
residents should be in favor of the installation a~
consideration of alternative traffic control and trar
management techniques.
3.03 Staff Evaluation
An adequate engineering and safety investigation of any reqt
should be made to determine that the agencies' adopted guide11
are met for speed hump use.
Since speed humps may have a wide ranging impact not only on
vehicles crossing them but also on the residents living on
immediate and nearby streets, their installation should typic:
be studied within the context of a overall Neighborhood Tral
Management study. Such a study would involve thorough proce:
for considering, evaluating, implementing, and monitoring SI
humps and any other traffic management techniques utilized.
7 e -1 1-
. I.
3.04 Coordination Procedures
Proposed speed hump installations should be reviewed by
police, fire , ambulance and oth.er emergency service departmer
adjacent neighborhood residents that may be impacted by the SF
hump installation, and other potentially affected groups suct
transit operators and refuse collection agencies. Commc
process.
If humps are to be installed, residents and affected agenc
should be notified of the exact objectives, timing, location
other relevant details of the installation. It is also advis:
to meet with emergency service providers to more fully in1
them of the hump's expected impacts on special vehicle types
various operating speeds.
received should be fully considered in the decision-mal
3.05 Removal Procedures
Removal of speed humps should only be considered after
adequate review period and subsequent engineering analysis
been performed to determine the traffic characteristics along
route and the impacts to the remainink street system. If a f
is being removed due to a lack of public support, a majorit)
residents should typically support its removal.
Before making a decision to remove speed humps, all petitio1
originally requesting the installation should be given
opportunity to comment on the proposed removal.
3.06 Cost
Consideration should be given to a possible requirement
those individuals requesting speed humps be required
participate in the funding of their installation, maintens1
and removal, if necessarv. Regardless of funding source, it
critical that adequate and ongoing resources be allocated
properly inspect and maintain the hiimps and supporting device:
4-00 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
4.01 Dimensions and Cross-Sections
FOK typical residential streets the most widely-used circu
parabolic speed hump (TRRL profile, 3", ,!I' or 4" maximum)
shown in Figure 4.1. The 3" hump can be expected to cause sp~
of from 30 to 25 m.p.h. at the hump, with a 4" hump crea
crossing speeds of 15 to 30 m.p.h. Humps should not exceed A
height, and where significant percentages of trucks, buses,
other long-wheel base vehicles are expected, an approximatc
height is generally considered more acceptable. An alterna
design that has been successfully tested in Australia is show
Figure 4.2 (flat-topped). Site specific roadwav and trn
0
-12-
0 -_
-il
..
0
0 056 1.07 1.53 1.99 2-31 1.13 1.89 3-11 228 340 JY8 3.50" 433'5/Efp )fuHp
0 l.67 /.?8 23 2.W 4?67 Ldl .?fz 2% JWR + 3' spf&p HUMP
0.bY 1.22 /.75 2.22 z.6Y 3.m 3.31 1% 3.75 J8Y 197 Y.oo'+ 4"5P€€ONUHP
0.11) 0.Yz 1.31
IIi1iC44r4
++4)+*J++t *- 6' /L * - _--. . - - ____ .
g
Figure 4.1
I
-
125 m
or8.6m
. "1
,I I I I t,, mm 2 brddicrg d
Figure 4.2
0 -13-
e .._
-.
characteristics should be evaluated to determine if one of t1
designs, or an alternate, is appropriate for the traffic
roadway conditions at the installation location being considei
4.02 Spacing and Location
Speed humps within a series are generally placed from 200 feet
750 feet apart. On a street with desirable maximum opera1
speeds of 30 m.p.h., humps should be spaced at approximately
foot intervals. Figure 4.3 (from FHWA Report No. ED-814
illustrates the general relationship between hump spacing
influence results, an empirical relationship between hump spac
and speeds has been developed in Australian research effoi
Based on data from the United Kingdom and Australia,
following equation was derived:
For a 4" high speed hump:
vehicle speeds at and between humps. While local conditions L
2 HS = 0.50 (2.59 (V85) -656)
Where Hs = the optimal spacing of humps (ft.), and
Where V = the desired 85th percentile speed (m.p.h.1
1
85 be tween road humps.
This equation is deemed valid for d range of from 16 m.p.h. t(
m.p.h.
Using this formula for a 4" high road hump, the optimal spa(
for the 85th percentile speeds of 30 m.p.h. is 838 ft. and fo;
m.p.h., it is 481 ft.
A special Subcommittee of the California Traffic Control Dev
Committee developed an approximate spacing equation for a 3" 1
speed hump from the speed data in Australian and Cnited Lint
tests. This equation is as follows:
? Hs = .5(2(V85)--700)
Where Hs = the optimal spacing between 3" humps
(measured in feet), and
Where V = the desired 85th percentile speed 85 be tween humps (in m. p. h. ) .
The spacing for the 85th percentile speed of 30 m.p.h.
calculated to be 550 ft., and for 25 m.p.h. is 175 ft.
n n
C
Y
0
v
0 m 0 - 0 0, (Y 0 .m
d 0 r r.n LCT
uE -L
Em m bno
O* CI. .- 0
a2 -0 II
4 !;
cc '* ' 0
-0 h
' < -
0 ou -0 LL 4
u 2
0- n - on0 -0 mc r:
e=
-.I
L
3-
L-
.nu 0 .- u -0 a L
ca
- Y -
3 or
L-
4- La ma a*
-a= E"
V 0- -0 L
2::
P
n
C Q
0 -0 0
nrr (Y
LC 9c
YI
QQ ..
vu
nn 00
ma a
3-
LL
4.7 '0 -0 -
2
1
a -15-
0 --
*.
. ,-
A series of two or more speed humps are usually more effect
than single hump installations. Any one series of humps sho
generally not be greater than one-half mile in length and the
of one series should not be -immediately adjacent to anot
series. Speed humps may also be used in pairs to increase th
effectiveness. When installed in pairs humps are generally
closer than 10 feet and no further apart than 40 feet. T
should ideally be located adjacent to property lines as oppo
to the center of a property in order to minimize residen
aesthetic concerns.
The first hump in a series should normally be located ii
position where it cannot be approached at high speed from eit
direction. To achieve this objective speed humps (at the fi
hump in a system) are typically installed within approximat
100 feet or less of a small-radius curve or stop sign, or at
top of a hill if installed on a street with signific
downgrade. FHWA Report No. FHWA/RD-81/031, Improving
Residential Street Environment, offers the following guideli
for determining the number and placement of humps for vari
street segment lengths:
1. Single short blocks (less than 400 ft.) with SF
control problems are unusual. Where such blocks n
be treated, a single hump positioned near mid-bl
would likelv provide satisfactorv speed control c
the entire block.
2. Where control is required on single block segments
moderate length, a two hump configuration should
satisfactory.
3. On very long blocks, 3 or more humps may be necessai
4. On lengthy continuous segments or on control segmf
comprised of a number of blocks, it appears desir:
to space interior humps bOO to 600 ft. apcrt, altiic
spacings up to 750 ft. apart mav be satisfactory.
least one hump should be placed in each block c7
control segment.
Figure 4.4 illustrates these hump spacing concepts.
.. 0
-17-
e
_-
4.03 Traffic Control
Traffic control consisting of signs, markings and poss:
flashing signals is essential to warn roadway users of a SI
hump's presence and guide their subsequent action. While
minimum standards exist for devices to be used in conjunci
with speed humps , devices typically used by agencies include
following:
Traffic Signs - The most common warning sign used appl
to be the standard MUTCD W8-1 "BUMP" warning sign. W1
the MUTCD does allow special warning signs for non-stant
situations, most agencies have found the "BUMP" sign tc
appropriate for use with speed humps. The sign
typically installed in advance of the hump and at the
although some agencies install only one or the ot
Advance warning signs should be located based on H
Table 11-1, "A Guide for Advance Warning Sign Place
Distance." Some agencies also require installation o
advisory speed plate indicating the recommended cros
speed at the hump. Advisory speed plates are
considered useful in educating unfamiliar roadway user
the recommended crossing speed when humps are initi
installed.
Some agencies install a special supplemental p
of street segment. These signs typically carry the le
"Next XX Feet" and are installed under the first hump
preceding a series of humps. Side road approaches
intersect a street within a series of humps should als
evaluated with regard to the need for advanced notifica
signing. Some agencies install warning signs
supplemental arrow plates indicating the location of s
humps on an intersecting street.
In certain instances it may also be justified to ins
special attention flags or flashing lights to speed
warning signs. These devices are sometimes used in
initial installation period or in locations where urii
combinations of roadway or vehicle operating condi
present special conditions that warrant additional wa
devices.
I
indicating multiple humps are in place for a certain le
Markings - ?tarkings in use by agencies today in1
advance word messages (typically "BUNP") and spl
markings directly in advance of or on the hump. Se?
hump marking designs are in use today, but the d'
selected should not create confusion with sta
crosswalk markings unless the hump location is intende
pedestrian crossings. Pavement word and symbol mar
should be white in color as required by the MUTCD.
I 0 -18-
a
-.
.I
Some agencies have installed double yellow center1
markings to call additional attention to hump locations
to prohibit passing in the vicinity of the hump, and ot
agencies have installed reflective markers in advance of
at the hump to improve nighttime visibility.
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate a number of signing and mark
designs in use by agencies today. Any agency installing SF
humps should review their State and Federal Manual on Unif
Traffic Control Devices for minimum requirements bef
establishing typical speed hump signing and marking designs
their jurisdiction.
4.04 Installation Angle
Speed humps should be installed at a right angle to
centerline tangent of the roadway.
4.05 Drainage and Utilities
Speed humps should be installed with appropriate provisions I
for roadway drainage and utility access. Humps should gener;
not be located over or contain maintenance access holes, 01:
located adjacent to fire hydrants.
Ideally a hump should be installed at a location immediatei;
the downside of an existing drain inlet. If this is not feas
the construction of a bypass drain or other treatment to rl
water around the hump should be considered.
4.06 Roadway Edge Treatments
On roadways with barrier curbs, humps should ideally extend f
across the road from curb to curb. If tapering is necessary
drainage or other reasons, the edge taper should be accompli
at an angle that will not affect the downstroke of bicvcle pe
or subject vehicles to undercarriage damage.
A phenomenon known as "gutter running" may be encouraged
tapered hump edges since drivers can drive with one wheel in
gutter thereby reducing the humps' ability to slow vehicles.
humps are installed with tapers, or used on non-curbed road\
raised pavement markers, delineator posts, or other treatn
should be considered to eliminate or reduce the possibilit
vehicles attempting to partially or totally avoid the hump.
should be recognized, however, that these devices may h3v
impact on maintenance and snow removal activities. If inst2
on roadways with paved shoulders, the hump should ideally e?
across the shoulder in order to discourage vehicles
attempting to avoid the hump.
Figure 4.7 illustrates techniques for providing hump tapers
edge treatments on non-curbed roads.
-1Y- a
&MIMG FLAGS
[FIRST WEEK) -- ="x ma w3-72 WARflIffi 3GM BLACK CW YELLOW, ,, b'SsU71l3 E LETTERS
W6(15) SlGM
MPU
S\rJN LOCATICNS aS
DIizECTEC EY EhJGihlEEG
L-
-1 - 0
Humps for
'2 mile Pz
Humps for
300 yards SI
I Hump20 yds Ll
d a
-20-
0,
--
-, L
10" reflective
white stripes Installed by
City forces y
EOGE OF PAVEMENT
EXISTING GUTTER
b
CURE - 1 SIDEWALK I
~MOVUIFYunGS10=
WWTE wm wiu mTWn
Figurc 4.6
W
-21-
*-
_I
A.C. STANOAAO VARI€S
COAT
CUR8 :T=+++ FACE m
I
%H7 bahind
Figure 4.7
0 -22- 0 .-
*-
4.07 Coordination with Street Geometry
A thorough on-site analysis of roadway geometrics should
performed to ensure that speed humps will not be introduced a
critical point in the roadway system, i.e., a severe combinat
of horizontal and vertical curvature and/or street gradient.
4.08 Coordination with Traffic Operations
Speed humps should not be installed within 250 ft. of a traf
signal- or within an intersection or driveway. This suggestior
not intended to apply to the use of a raised intersection a
valid traffic management technique.
4.09 On-S tree t Parking
Care should be taken to ensure that vehicles parked on street:
not diminish the effectiveness of the signing and marking
speed humps. Should parking be removed adjacent or in advance
the hump, the ability of vehicles to avoid tapered humps
gutter-running'' will be enhanced. Each hump installation shc
be evaluated independently for' site-specif ic par1
considerations.
17
4.10 Streetlighting
To improve nighttime visibility, especially where sight dist
is less than desirable, coordinating hump locations with exis
or planned streetlighting should be considered.
'4.11 Construction Materials
The construction of the hump can be pre-cast concrete secti
concrete cast in situ, asphalt or brick/concrete pav
Experience has shown that the use of soft material will resul
deformations as the top of the hump is puslied in the directio
the t:raf f ic stream.
4-12 Construction Procedures
It is recommended that a template be constructed to verify
accuracy of the hump profile and to ensure that the de?
dimeinsions are attained within reasonable tolerances (non
one-half inch or less provided that the hump does not excf
inches). If the profile is incorrect, hump characteristics
be changed which may result in vehicle damage or ineffec
speed control.
IF the hump is constructed in situ, it is recommended that
road surface be excavated at tapering edges to prevent spa
h 4 \ Segment of circle
0 Sm Radius * 54.22 ft.
P 7
e
-24-
0 -d
'.
_-
5.03 Volume Studies
Traffic volume counts should be made on the subject street and
those other streets where traffic diversion may be expect(
These counts should be made before installation and after trafl
patterns have stabilized to determine the magnitude and specii
location of this diversion.
Both turning movement and 24-hour volume counts may be needed
quantify these impacts.
5.04 Stop Sign Obedience
Studies may be desirable before and after hump installation
determine if the speed humps have impacted the compliance rate
affected stop sign locations. Increased violation rates shc
be considered in speed hump evaluations and selective enforce5
may be necessary to address the problem.
5.05 Travel Time Studies
Based on the particular requirements bf the installation, it
be desirable to perform detailed travel time studies before
after hump installation to determine the effect on overall tr;
time along the subject street or through the area.
5.06 Accident Analysis
A thorough before and after accident analysis should be perfo
to determine if accident trends have been noticeably impactec
the speed hump installation. It may be necessary to estab
ongoing analyses at some locations to gauge the longer-
trends of accident rates.
5-07 Resident and Driver Surveys
Within 30 to 60 days after installation (or at the end of
established trial period) it may he desirable to survey adja
residents and other affected residential areas to assess t
concerns and perception of the speed humps' performs
Motorists continuing to travel the street may also be selecti
surveyed to assess their opinion of the speed humps' insts
tion. Emergency and service agencies should also be offered
opportunity to comment on the installation.
5.08 Noise Analysis
It may be desirable to perform both before and after studit
determine the speed hump's impact on traffic noise in advanc
at, and beyond each hump site.
w
-25-
_I
_..
- ,-
5.09 Vibration Analysis
It may be desirable to perform vibration analysis to determine
roadway vibrations transmitted by the hump crossings are expec
to have detrimental effects on adjacent properties
structures.
5.10 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Social Activity
Before and after observations may be made at various times of
day and night to determine if pedestrian, bicycle, and ot
types of resident activity have been altered as a result of
speed hump installation.
5.11 User Cost Analysis
It may be desirable to perform a detailed "beforelafter"
cost analysis considering vehicle speeds, travel times , veh
and driver costs, and other elements. This analysis shoulc
based on the particular characteristics of the speed hump sy
and other residential traffic management techniques b
employed . I
5.12 Vehicle Emission Analysis
It may be desirable to perform a vehicle emissions analysi
determine the speed hump's impact on air quality. This anal
will require both before and after studies of traffic vol~
acceleration/deceleration, and speeds.
6.00 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
6.01 Liability Concerns
Speed humps and other pavement undulations are not tr,
control devices as defined by the Manual on Uniform Tr,
Control Devices. They are, however, geometric design featuri
the roadway and should be designed, installed, operated,
engineering judgment.
If speed humps are not installed in a proper manner and wit
care, and vehicle damage or personal injury occurs, i
possible that the installing agency could be found t
maintaining a public nuisance, i.e., a known defect in the s
system which may result in increased liability expc
Therefore , complete and proper documents should be retain
justify the decisions made. Local and state laws should a1
reviewed to identify any regulations pertaining to rc
design, roadway maintenance, traffic control, or other elf
that may be related to the use of speed humps or other georr
design features.
maintained using accepted engineering principles and pr
e
-26-
0 .-
<.
6.02 Vehicle and Cargo Damage
Where streets with speed humps are expected to carry substant
numbers of long wheel-base vehicles or other special vehi
types such as motorcycles and bicycles, a special attempt sho
be made to warn and notify drivers of these vehicles that sp
humps exist and how they should be driven to minimize proble
It may also be desirable to modify the standard hump design
further minimize impacts to these users.
6.03 Coordination with Pedestrian Crossings
If mid-block pedestrian crossings exist or are planned, it may
desirable to coordinate them with speed humps since vehi
speeds will generally be lowest at speed hump crossings.
fact, it may be desirable to install a hump directly adjacent
or on the pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian access can
encouraged by paving any grassed area connecting the hump
nearby sidewalks. In addition to standard signing, pedestr
crossing signs should be installed for any established crossin
6.04 Aesthetic Considerations
I
It is possible that speed humps can be constructed of spec
materials such as brick pavers or specially-treated concrete
order to enhance their appearance. However, consideration sho
be given to street maintenance requirements in the area
whether or not special materials can be properly maintained
the responsible agency.
6.05 Incorporation in New Street Design
It is desirable in the planning of new residential subdivisi
to configure and design local streets to minimize excess
speed, excessive volumes, and cut-through traffic from out5
the immediate neighborhood. However, where adequzte subdivis
planning and street design has not or can not he achieved,
one of the aforementioned problems is considered likelv, it
be appropriate to include speed humps as a part of new stt
construction after consideration of less restrictive design
traffic control techniques. Adequate signs, markings, and ot
devices should also be provided to support their installation.
6.06 Enforcement Needs
During the initial stages of speed hump experience, it 1
generally be desirable to employ special police assignment
enforce traffic violations occurring at or near speed humps
along routes experiencing diversion.
0
-27-
0 -*
.-
9
6.07 Maintenance Issues
Care should be taken in the initial installation and monitori
of speed humps to ensure that edge ravelling and profi
deformation does not exceed established tolerances. Regular
scheduled inspections and maintenance should be performed
maintain the appropriate design relationship between the hump a
the street so the hump continues to perform its intended purpc
within allowable tolerances. If pavement maintenance activiti
result in speed hump markings being reduced or eliminated, tf
should be promptly replaced or supplemented with temporary sig
providing the same warning to motorists.
While damage from snow plowing activities was initially a concl
in speed- hump installation, experience has shown that humps
generally not a detriment to those activities provided that
hump edges are properly maintained.
t
- -- 1 Bar-Ziv, y., zaide1, nd Hakkert. A-S.. "Traffic Rest'
Technion city w Means of Speed Reducing Devic
Markers.*' Transportation Research Institute* Road
Wichita* Kansas
Long, Todd hey. The Use of Traffic Control He s in the Prevention
of Throu h Traffic Movement on Residential Streets. Hasters Thesis. gGeorgia Institute of Technology, civil Engineering j --
. -Department, September 1990. Haifa, Israel. 1986-
~ - city Of Dallas. Texas, Speed Hump Policy and Installation Procedures on , City of Wichita, Speed Bump'Hump Studyo
of operations and Maintenance. 19B6*
Of ~
1
Residential Streets (Preliminary Report), Department
Transportation. Dallas, Texas, July 1990.
England and Wales Gove-nt Statute No. 1856, The High* Gorman. Uichael N.. et. al., "Evaluation of Speed Hump Program in the Humps) Regulations 1986. London. England, 1986. ! City of Dmaha." ITE Journal, June 1989, pp. 28-32.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Technical Council 5B-15, Technical Council InfOnriatiOn I Bumps-Appropriate for Use on Public Street .I' 2
Zaidel. D.. Hakkert, A.S.. and Pistiner. A.H.. A Critical Evaluation of the Use of Humps in Urban Areas. Insistute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Transportation Research
56, No. 11, pp. 18-21. 1986. Israel, July 1989,
Uak. K.K., "A Further Note on Undulation as a Speed Con1
Transportation Research Record 1069, Traffic Cont
Rail-Highway Crossings. T.R.B., D.C.. 1986.
Petcersson. H.E.. "Rumble StKipS." National Swedish RO.
Research Institute, Report No. 890, 1986 (in Swed
Road Traffic Authority, Guidelines for the Use and Inst
Homburger. Wolfgang S., Elizabeth A. Deakin, et. al., Residential
Street Design and Traffic Control. Washington, D.C.. Institute
of Transportation Engineers, 1989.
~umps. Victoria, Australia, 1986.
I Tako, Michael J.. "Long-Term Study of Speed Humps in Tampa, Florida." City of Tampa Transportation Department, Florida. March 1988.
City of Portland, Oregon, Neighborhood Traffic Manaeenenc Program.
Porclahd Office of Transportation, April 1988.
Stephens, B.W.. "Road Humps for the Control of Vehicul: Traffic Flow." Federal Highway Administration,
Public Roads, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 82-90. 1986.
Hanchey, C.H. and Myer, S.E., "Local Traffic Engineering: Where are
We." I.T.E. Journal. pp. 27-31. May 1988.
Wuerz, Donald E.. "Speed Humps." Letter to the Editor, Civil - Zaidel, D.. Hakkert. S.A., and Barkan. R., "RwbIe StKl Engineering, July 1988. Strips ac a Rural Intersection." Transportation 1069. Traffic Control Devices and Rail-Highway CI
Chadda. H.S.. and Cross. S.E.. "Speed (Road) Bumps: I: opinions ." American Society of Civil Engine
Nevnham, Donald F.. "Speed HumpsfFinal Report .I' a memorandum to the
Altamonte Springs City Manager. Altanonte Springs, Florida. September 23. 1988.
City of Pasadena. California, Evaluation of Tvo-Inch Hieh Experimental Transporration, Vol. 111, No. 4. Jul!
Speed Humps on Wilson Avenue Between Orange Grove Dlvd. and Meier, Diane. The Policy Adopted in Arlington County. ' Washington Blvd. Department of Public Works and Transportation. Solving Real and Perceived Speeding Problems Pasadena. California. Xovember 1988. Streets. Paper presented at 55ch Annual I'
Orleans. LR., August 1985.
and Procedures. Department of Public h'orks. Appleton, Wisconsin.
1988.
City of Appleton. Wisconsin. Speed Hump Warrants; Speed iiump Polic~rs
Hakkert, A.S.. Zaidel, D., and Bar-Ziv, T.. "Speed Hun1
Roads." Report 85-81. Technion-Israel Insticut
Transportacion Research Institute, 1985 (in Hebr' Hashirnoto. K.. Nishirnuro, H., Taterna. Y.. and Fujicsuka. T., "Assessing
the Effectiveness of the General Traffic Safety Yodel Scheme."
1988 <in Japanese). pivnik. Sheldon I., "Xeighborhood Speed Control I.iJbil
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities. Guide to Transportation Research Board. Washingcon. D
Consideracions." a paper presenced at the Annu.
1984. - ' Traffic Engineering Practice: Part IO--Local Area Traffic 2
Hanagement. Sydney AuStKillin, 1988. TRB Session 126, "Neighborhood Speed Control - A Syntl
Hump Experience." January 1984. City of Sacramento. California. "Policies and Procedures for the
Installation of Undulations." Internal Circular. September 8.
1987. Informal Report Number 84-05-02, "Speed Bump Survey ..'
Himmar 5. Chadda. Ph.D:, P.E. Washingcon. D
Public Works. May 1984. Uynne. G.G.. "European Speed and Traffic Control Deveiopment." C Journal, pp. 43-44. September 1987. Inouye, Martin R., "SacrJmento County Neighborhood SPI
City of Bellevue. Washington. Neighborhood Traffic Control Study." Western KTE. Vol. XXXVII. No. 3. June
Program-Speed Hump Installation and Removal Criteria. Public
Works Department, City of Bellevue. Washington, 1987.
Humps. Public Works and Transportation Department, Pn:adena. ~
California. 1987.
Rezek, J-. "Rmbl. Strips." Alaa~. hpar-mt of 'h
Facilities. Research Notes Vol. 4. NO. 5, N~~~~
hePerican Ahsociation of State Highway and ==ansportar
Policy on Geometric Design of Highuaya and str D.C.. 1984.
De wit. T.. and Slop. U.. "Traffic Humps as Rec-enc
Study Centre for Traffic ~~~i~~~
City of Pasadena. Californfa. Policies for the Installation of S eed
Department of Transport. london. Traffic Advisory Unit Leaflet 3/87,
"Speed Control Humps." Traffic Policy Division. London, 1987.
and Effects."
PTRC Annual Ueeting PKOC.. 1984. U.K. The Institution of Highways and Transportation vith the Department !
of Transport, "Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas." 1987.
GovaertS, u-. "Evaluation of Speed Humps in Lewen."
Vola 35, NO. 11, 1984 (in Dutch). Zebaurers, Valdis, "Speed Control Bumps in Jefferson County." Highways ,
and Transportation Department, Jefferson County. Colorado, 19e7.
Hi€XinSs J-s-, Barbel. W. (Federal Hfghvay Administr.
Department of Transportation), "Rumble Strip
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Rec-ended c,
City of Phoenix, Arizona. "Experimental Tests vith Speed Humps in
1984. Phoenix: Final Report." Depaitment of Screets and Traffic, City
of Phoenix, Arizona. January 1986.
Subdivision Streets--A Recornended practice.
1984.
Janris, J.R., "Concrolled Testing of 'Flat-Topped Road Humps',''
Internal Report Australian Road AIR 853-2. Research Board. Victoria. Australia. September 1986.
Zaidel. D- et dl.. "An Experimental Comparison of pa.
Rumble Strips at Lou-Volume Rural Intersectio Annual Meeting Procedings. 1984.
Xinistry of Transport - Traffic Division, "Speed Restraining Devices on
Yosef Ban-Iaari Street in Jerusalem - Before and After Stud?.."
City of Jerusalem, October 1986 (in Hebrev).
C1ement. J-p-. "Speed Humps and the Thousand Oaks h, ITE Technical Council Committee 58-15, "Road Bumps--Appropriate for lke
on Public Streets?," ITE Journal, November 1986, pp. 18-?I.
vereniging het Nederlandsche Uegencongres, "Study of Stevens, Burton U., "Road Humps for the Concrol of 'Jehicular Speeds and Traffic Flow." Public Roads, December 1986. pp. 82-90. in Hewelo: Advantages and Disadvantages." w
1. Netherlands. January 1983 (in Dutch).
Journal. January 1983. pp. 35-39.
U.K. Department of Transport, "Road Humps." Joint Circular 8/86
(Iondon) and 52/86 (Welsh). December 1986
Link, 0.9 Meiron, 0.8 Hakkert, A.S., and Zaidel, D., "Speed Restraining
' DeviceS - CriCeria for Installation Guidelines Proposal - psrt
A*" MinistrY of Transport - Traffic Division. July 1983 (in Hebrev).
Jarvis, J.R., Sveatman, P.F.. "The Loading Of Pavements j of Road Humps." ARRB Proceedings of the 11th Conf
rhe University of Melbourne. Vol. 11. part 2. 1982.
Jivatode, R., and Burke, T., ,,Neighborhood Speed Control Project." D.C. Department of Transportation
Caarder. f-. "Bus Traffic and Road Kunrps." hnd ~~~~i~~~~ of Technology, University of Lund, Sweden, August 1982,
Washington. D.C.. 1980.
''Lynne, George, Traffic Restraints in Residential Neighborhoods.
I . Transition, Inc., New Brunswick. New Jersey, 1980.
1977.
0 -. z W *..
E+ n
c,
a,
I - &. t
00 s
IiJ
cL a. u E6
3 a>
5
a ET ao n 0 20 8 --a 0- u,I :c 0 + 0 6
WE I fj om e - Ku a. ii, % z <a $a 0
f2E I 0 Es
aw 2 (3 +w 0 cn % Z
ZJ
%L ww
I OW ucoga, n cTW
ut-- 0 3 pg
?l
P- cn
E 0 a 5 n
a
II:
a<
zw CIT i=
ZK n cn w~ a I !Yx w 0 >+ I I-F rK 0 wo
t- 00 w E
m z 3 2 2
0
- - wz
m
n oe 3 O 88 0 (y) ..
OZ a $40
z 3 z
W I- cn w 0 I. 0 0
t.1 t.
w2u
f I I I
OvlcJ -a v ArJh uwv)c,
cgc 0 0 2u
4. rdk ?> u a, L.
.c4 XaJd Ld WLC. @.-I ;r: 5 $1 u .ri >
cv) 4 "CC .r( 4 0 uo or 0
Ii
m
c 'L + I!
0 -::1
4 aJP rd2 JC
:p
u 3L( U
yb ' a,3 :a/
= 2 3' a30 -ri 4
3e .z v) 0
L -d u aUa aa
VLm
tcVlUb
U E::
nu 14 g rl w; ?-4 5D c a@ v0 u c 0 .r(
ab'c
dgU U
hz E r "2 ;E -ds; 2:
c WE WaJ m &,u cI E;-. x; 5: u 2: u 0, -P:
0 ha 'C 5-5 a:: z2w;l
Q-ou a:2 u -d .3 g:; $-+ a3 a !4 c;;
4 (d -IL1 *A 5:s
a ;: m hJ= aJ3 a -ri r.? E3 vo Uk u;o > kg,. I $1 I aJu24 ?Ut c; k 0.4 Eac
ZG 0) -oq .ri aJ4 CJ
C.d-4C aJ Wp.3> om ado- 0
y-4: :tiv
E; L *:id
C lc(3Tt; ,"2- yJ&
rJ *;g amp m 0 0-Jl-I
c*d v) e u-G u Li &
OPm : 5
m
L-r
c/) 1 a$
C
fa RWo
.c4 6a
01 4.2 x1 UUb> avl 3rd rd -r(
LLJ I *dC
pJ - -p.I
W t-
F cn
4 I- .~ -vi a F= zi
wl cl w c ghi Ill
U E == 0
+w 0 0 LE&
L.. 17 'rf j Li2LL.D OLa rld
v)
Sa$ auc
Vl-drnu4 VI u
!4 vc UO01 3ma+ VUE UCVI 4
td a 3 5 2 : I// 40aJ
kUU YC co
m-3 a g2w rJi
:WaJ:
C u4afj u*d uucaJ ac>D
oxv -im
+u40 plk UU@U umc ::$ g!4Jp OWU or.?:\
XM 5 -!jn -riu!4aJ /;i%,il
QaJW Cplo
mq !4QJm a u w.c cuaw I 'ct.dTIO Q
b
V gtjj // CJ a; 2 i mv)o hc oord '2 E ' z4$.5 4WO-i 4COc -dEm2v)
ad cu 01
wWWw H3-r,U H6C3 War~ma
Dvu> 4c*rlo 4aDu ualucrm
uaJbJO CnM-oC W>*dal 303bV mau> dm30 cowc T&J?IU?j
td.dU!-l rdcz '.VId.-( UddU 4Ja&3c UDfafaL
< I N m
1 I
U
Q) U -
gocb
??
%Z
-a 25 W3 $ .i3
L *e -0 0 5 ?,z m% 25 *- 2 20
a '5 +& <$ 2
%$ x-., 5 '5
$ Hi *
b 00 mC G 42.2 -
E; r= Ll c.2.
p) e: a2 a a- *zo C G-2 2 VJ.
$ =p) a-
(d $5 sg'
,;j 5s z3z
9) M 2vl
22 az
PaJ si ci .E Ybo .g .- C =E a
9
P)a C
i:
c1
VJ .e ? CM
0-0
CdQ
GI= za
ca 3 aJ 0 - 65 -+A m G *
CQ 0 MU -U
m
P)
5 cd p -9 $.S 4
c,
A"
e* E
E&
Sa>a
-- +
c cr
I: a
OL ;I QC
maa
'qrr 02 -E 2
+-r- t t 0
a2 z.24 t 3Z -zs 2 w2 -2 0) 2
42 0
4
.4 2
t'l m c 00
wc 40
0 * 42 WL. 2
I42 uD- 2 --- -m e2 -c a 1 -- -2 2
02 3% 2 m*
D-Qr u
0 c
d -e d PI2 IN IC4 00 e4 c-
12 2 2
2 2 2 *2
< 42 t
2 2 Qt
2 CZ
32 2
t 2 H?
m 0 42 62 \o I r(
I2 2 2 2 2 I2
2
2
?
c-4
2
*Z 42 2 t 2 2 2
2 2 a2
I+.?
L52 D42 lIn e4 0 I 4
2
2
2
2
4
I2 2
2
2
2
*t
42
Q2
G'1 2 2
2
3
2
C.?
32
w-+ 0)
x1
;,~ -0 n-
2
; .- 6a ea
0 2;
4 z;
zshl
U',
4:; 5% ma 2 2
2 -tz w Ll
0 Eu
.... - a? MO r- CJ
"2 !2t
z!? WE 2
~W2 -2 0) 2 .", 1 k 32
GFd
- w-ch oa 14 -e4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
In
It
I2
*?
42 nz 22
02 r2 103 I4 hl
I2 2 2
I2 $.a
42 ca2 2 t&Z=L2 M 2 Z RZGZ2 e2 2 V%?S&2
52 2 -zzw-52
X2 2 %--Z =< e* 415: szia 4 &=.-I I
A22 tz CZ 1.2
2 .- w 2
0 =- rl -4
? 1
412
2 0 0 2;
4 2;
4= HI: t 2k
"3 2 s;%=; 2 EaM ~pau fiz: -2.2 2 ea 0 2 -zQr- u *=- '4.4 2 zzs 2 ::bzb-"
L.- 2 g-4 2 E,",- 4% -
0 2; 2 2 -2s 2.E 2 2
2 e.: 2 at clam
h w-
¶LC
2 ZZhe ** 2 A g$: --A 2 wu P a -- ro ? L. =eeg a Qr-4
0 \DM -
4
2
2
2
2
ehl c-. I
12 1 I? 2
*?
42 a2
22 02 E2 14 1
I
2
2
2 Z
2 Z
2 2 03
2 2
In
4
2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2
2
2
2 2
2
2 1
12
*? 42 a? 22
32
Ir- 4. Id CJ m
1
02 2
r(
I * 2 2
2 2
t
2 2 2
2 2 e PI 4
4 ? 2 n t z 3 > 62 I I
e w Z 0 n
c3 z E W
7 -
cn
1
I
F: WU a
3
n
3 I-
$aw n'u
021 z t- I- t.
W m3 n =z -
*=w wd
OOlr 0 wF U =k I- a 'z w ' Ow c I- =z 2
c/) ow cw 7 - az [Inn *O I- 2 <u45-,0 o' W mu
ki 0 3- I) 56
[r v>o E 2Kk wcnU
a, ni W w wo c/) 28; [r K
z nu, - W
w 2 W U
I- Z 2
K
I-
W
on =w wI- 0 - - U W
m Z Z -lL w nz a
W w Ew 0
Q W U
3 0 >
I- UI UII K
C/)
4
I- El Camino Rea1
zgtn Q. @
EW-J$O
€or ul ocacng
E, MOU 0 Q) a3-m Q) z.;;Em-Y
La.ZZL 0 *= Q 's 2
11111
c
aa
E gu, I,&@ h?moc 3 v-pq O@O a, '"30 Y nm Z 00
II I
c 0 co
cd
=-
1,
F 0
0 a
c 0 L
c
3 0
0
m- W
+J
4
0 ‘Ir 2
4 0
? cd _r 8-
3c
- 00 aL
- 3- 3NW-l 33 \Q - +-rW %
@$ z
l-l B- 2; 3.- 3w7 3*)Q 0% d i-:
sr
0 zF 2 * co.go2
x-= cy
0- 0 L v,3 c- omu- azc Q) OfW
c -
a) -- v, E&Z.- aav, s :+:v,oz
0 = a) >-- a css >o.,
c/) -ow QE,m.z-3;Z cm a)
*<a;Sccr,o, = ogu Q)o SI Q) g 5 * 0 -3 a cT’3ca) 0 0 a ~
c%a OQ+L
+-
z 2 -I+>-
1 I I I
Zd . k.- 33 (/I1
I h $ i (3x-/EF 4;: P % g? 0 a
“00
2 n> - fa=
d 3s
--- 1 31.- ---:E C 9. A’(==) r
; Zn
=w /-
0 _- -
-217Ml? 301- a yiJ i H’ E
.c 0
-.I a ui
0
e 0
L
Y-
m-
I
0coco*cv0coco~~~ NTT-1-T-T-
(00 C JSd) Wa!WA 40 JaWnN
a 0
\
\ I-. .- a I a r
0 w w a. a
.-
_-
n c Y. '.$
;o L '0 ,: ,: ; ' 0 ,a wcll?Lh ,8 E
1
E& WI
wm a3 1
c/) a3 >C
2 .s
.u, Q) - 0 oc cI 8- a,
(II
W
a
8-
+
CI 53
i?$
2:
a, m- 9P 02
cn a a a, a€ su 3
8. cn cn cn a,
3
2:
mm L
+ 0 n c
m $-P a, U c 0 n
a, r
CQ
-
-I 8- -
a mQ a, 3 - >2
6; I I :
Q)
3 ’5 +
+.r
S -
I I
-
-
0’ c! 03 crz-
0 cn
0
E cn a a>
a 2- ma a 3
U 0 ul Q I a, @Z+d S 0
a> *o L
2
% _.
v)
a, Ec a, I, 2 cn
II
‘“E- ?
c a, U a> -
88 a> a 0
3
L
+
0
cn t - a a,
+ -
S- a5 Q ut: + CI a>@ + 0 0 > + c E *
r moii62 I I 1 I I
i
0
11 t I I I j 1 I.
AQQ
B 8 3 0 h
1"1'1'11' 0
$
,# +pq t!%$3 *'f 0
+xq* r.' -b
.*e..-. 1- .b.*** J s $
B \
b' :
0 0
---. 0
--o&
.. - 0
--e 0
I / -9- e
$
-4
-0 0 4.0 . x
9
h*ys
% ,rr\
0 \
/
*. t
-0
-b L v 33,' =-. /
5 g2, . .* - Y\ \ .**so -. *..a*
-0 \ '-
f . *-
0 e .*** -.
,be* - \ % .* \ '\
0' \
% . \
\- *.
\ -*- -e.....
-0
a
SQQ f**"*-*-*
dc's\t 0 - . .
-0 $$$$ :
3- e
h
LQ
-k
-0 P
-3\
8 -% 3
-2
'-
f
9
0
\*\
-bi -09
03- -0
-3
-0 \r\
-?
v 0
a> 0 TZ all
a>
Q a, x 0 =- %$); lu om 7-
L *3 Q)QI@Q)OQ) oc+ &So a CCW'33333~ aOrrcntnu)cncncn gob 0) C=-@~u,U,Ut~(Dcn ---- 00,
>a alja cttt CC #W
~*zzzzzz s>t5 c 3oww a, 111'
mm o~~~~c+-O~ - = .o 4 m oa,(s~@g&gzn ())5@ 5 y3-~u&''u 2 tj 2
oa,o + -; 25aqE no
~~ca ma>
U) (b h> px or, >I 3 38 GSrg 0 ~
5g -
F
0)
a, C
L - 0 c cn .-
is@ Oh
'z: u
@+a,
+I, cn--
~~~oooQo00 6-
aL2 > 0
a- Q)r L@Q
l1$11 t EU L F z@m>CoOEU)a L a,*-- Y- OtQ
x
*- to d n S cd cn 3 0' E I-
6 2 Ez w l-
WQ,
E w
r
c
:e
C a, a,
Q) U
€5
tn c m
IC
a> U
T3 cn a
3 Ul
I= 0
0
0 cn
(D a, a>
I( U a
0 c C m
3 I= 0 0
E cn Slr 3 L 0
S 0 a, (0 L
v) a,
S cn 3
0 3 u
.1 a .1
\
I- m- - cn a,
(I-
a- L L
co w
m
8 m-
L LC
CIlr
a- -Is 0, LY
(d LO: ZUT ca, '(do Iwr 35
DE <k Ow U
1- + m- m- L a
m- + D-
I
yl Ef
3 0
(d .1
.1
$-'
fT 2 I
L
m
$ v e
*
V
Q)
3
(d a,
t 0 (d m-
al TJ ICT a 0 )r n @u a, 10
+5 3 UT \tDv)+a,IL o@Oa>- OXCOLC
u) .E 3 3cn
t-
L
+
I. cn h t-
d(d a, Eo ru,
CL f=@ 8W (dqp 2 a0
IO c 0- Q 5gE 0.g E a+ cd s3 n- L-CJa>r €;E + @a .- - = a, 0" mits oQ3EaP
7, 8p b tn
3 s2! 0)
L
>r a
U >a, @U -Q)
a- - ax
0 A0 cv m=
..+
8 U 1, >m J, ryy 4
%
1
6
e
b w
0 C
a,
m-
W U .1
3 0- €9
c 0 sm- a5 Ox
m- oz a>€- c Ea L ON
m- + (d k Emc- 73% +L(dOZT(gj a. s' !Pro. OS OO 0) 2 wg C
>r 'E 25 m- I *E 'E 3 ;3 IC a>,aa,@+a,
0 (d
CD um a> Q= cl$=Q=a
n-
1 88 (d or-
Caa
L
n- I- '@$4" I 8 U