HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-18; City Council; 21275; Citizen Presentation Public Safety ResidentialCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 15
AB# 21,275
CITIZEN PRESENTATION REGARDING PUBUC
SAFETY ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
DEPT. DIRECTOR "
MTG. 6/18h3
DEPT. CM"
CITIZEN PRESENTATION REGARDING PUBUC
SAFETY ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
CITY ATTORNEY ^
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To receive a presentation from Joseph Mahon regarding public safety on residential streets.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City Council provides an opportunity for citizens and organizations to have an item placed
on a City Council Agenda by submitting a request to the City Manager. Attached is a request
from Joseph Mahon (Exhibit 1) requesting that the City Council receive a presentation relating
to public safety on residential streets.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, the activity is covered by the General Rule
that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to
CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBIT:
1. Jan. 17, 2013, letter to the City Manager from Joseph Mahon.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Sheila Cobian (760) 434-2959, sheila.cobian@carlsbadca.aov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED •
DENIED •
CONTINUED •
WITHDRAWN •
AMENDED •
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC •
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN •
RETURNED TO STAFF •
OTHER ~ SEE MINUTES ^
Council received the presentation,
Exhibit 1
January 17, 2013
Carlsbad City Manager,
As a neighborhood watch traffic safety professional in Carina Aviara, I request to be put on the next city
council agenda on January 29 to address the issue of public safety on residential streets. Since 2005 my
neighbors and I have worked will many city agencies to deploy residential traffic mitigation in
compliance with the state vehicle code of 25 MPH with little success.
Also, other Carisbad neighborhoods with similar conditions will also address council members about
specific 25 MPH traffic issues.
Sincerely, ,
W\ K/^
Jdseph Michael Mahon
6646Towhee Lane
760 930 9602
jmmahon@att.net
Carina Neighborhood Watch
Towhee Traffic Safety Interventions
Presented to Carlsbad City Council
Livable Streets
June 18^ 2013
Carina Neighborhood Watch Traffic Safety Chronology for Towhee Lane
Situation for residential Traffic:
Since the early 2006's housing crisis our neighborhood changed in Carina-Aviara with numerous rentals
and foreclosures whose tenants use Towhee as an extension off of Aviara Parkway. The neighborhood
mix has certainly changed from residential to multi-tenant, increased commercial vehicles with home
offices and less local tenants.
Community Activist Chronology with City:
2005 began to contact city about methods to curb speeding on Towhee Lane in Carina-Aviara
In years 2005 to 2010 had continual communication with Carlsbad Traffic Department to get physical
methods to prevent speeding on our street. Their best solution was to put a second 25 MPH sign on a
lamp pole and paint 25 MPH in the street. At that time speed ranged from 25 MPH being the minimum
with some up to 50 MPH recorded by CPD on their traffic survey system
2010 being semi-retired actively pursued getting a solution to speeding on Towhee with assistant from
Neighborhood Watch Commander and concerned neighbors. I have actively tracked down persistent
speeders to get license plate tt, vehicle type, model and driver sent to Lt Reno at CPD to issue a warning
letter.
2011 to 2012 actively monitor traffic on street using video camera and radar gun. Proactive approach
needed to do the job that Traffic Dept. and CPD cannot seem to accomplish.
Meeting with City Officials
April 2012 Farah Douglas and Bryan Jones, deputy director, 2/27 2012 meeting with Mayor Hall and
Bryan Jones, deputy director,, April 10, 2012 delivered petition to city hall and Lorraine Wood
October 2012
Minimal Solution:
Speed cushions already in use in City of Carlsbad on Donna Drive and Sierra Morena for about 16
months and used in many North County cities such Encinitas and Del Mar to deter speeding in excess of
25 MPH in residential neighborhoods
Livable Streets Issues:
Greater than 25 MPH issues are the following: first, seniors had difficulty just getting to mailbox since
drivers do no slow down for pedestrians there are 8 senior households on Towhee, second children and
grandchildren are not allowed to play in front of house without supervision 6 children households on
Towhee, and third, entering and leaving residential driveway is usually subject to a speeder tailgating or
approaching at a high rate of speed make it unsafe just to get in and out of one's driveway.
Bottom-line:
If a member of Neighborhood Watch is actively out in front of residence habitual speeders usually slow
down to 25 MPH knowing they might get reported to CPD, so we can either put a police officer on our
street or install two speed cushions to maintain a safe and traffic calmed street.
Also, city traffic monitoring does not get the true picture since as Lt. Reno reported in one of email
comment people will slow down when they know there is monitoring going on 1/2012CPD
HP PhotoSmart 07200 All-ln-One series Fax Log for
JM Mahon
760 930 9602
May 20 2013 9:28AM
Last Transaction
Date Time Type Station ID Duration Pages Result
May 20 9:27AM Fax Sent
Note:
18885444580 0:46 1 OK
Image on Fax Send Report is set to Off
An image of page 1 will appear here for faxes that are sent as Scan and Fax.
—Original Message—
From: JM Mahon rmai!to:1mmahonPatt,netl
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 6:54 PM
To: Jim Murray (iim.murrav@carlsbad.ca.us)
Subject: follow up to phone call
August 30, 2010
Jim,
This is follow up to our phone call today and 1 think this is my third request to the City of
Carlsbad to look at ways to mitigate the speeding on Towhee Lane. As we discussed, my
recommendation to reduce the speed are these: first, to install a 25 MPH on the light pole for
drivers coming down Towhee from Nightshade Drive.
Second install stop signs at the intersection of Sparrow and Towhee
Third if the 25 MPH signs could have an additional visual cue, the bright yellow/orange, used at
many intersections throughout Carlsbad that would also connote to the drivers a speed of
25, not the 40 plus some drivers use on this street.
Thanks for your support.
Mike Mahon
760 930 9602
Mike,
Thanks for sending the email foiiowing up to our telephone conversation regarding your
concerns/requests about speeding on Towhee Ln.
Staff will be preparing a work order to install a "SPEED LIMIT 25" sign for southbound traffic on
Towhee Ln. Also, as we discussed, if you would like to schedule the temporary Installation ofthe Speed
Sentry on Towhee Ln., you should give Officer Paul Reyes a call at (760) 931-2290. With your request,
please include the adjacent street address ofthe street light pole you would like the Speed Sentry
installed (I would suggest installing on the street light adjacent to 6633/6639 Towhee Ln. facing up-hill in
blank screen/stealth mode to record the down-hill drivers speeds.) The Speed Sentry records the speed
of each approaching vehicle & data printout sheets with the speed data collected can be provided.
Regarding your request to install "bright yellow/orange" (florescent yellow-green) signage at or as
part of the "SPEED LIMIT 25" signs as an additional visual cue, I addressed this issue during our
telephone conversation. Federal & state sign standards do not allow florescent yellow-green to be used
on or to supplement speed limit signs. Speed limit signs are regulatory signs and are required to be
black lettering on a white background. Florescent yellow-green is only used on School Zone and
Pedestrian Warning signs. As we discussed, we could consider painting a white "25" pavement legend
on the street adjacent to the "SPEED LIMIT 25" signs, to supplement the speed limit signs.
i have added Towhee Ln. (at Sparrow Rd.) to the list of (15) streets waiting/hoping that the City
Council will approve revisions proposed to our traffic calming program to include the use of residential
stop which should occur later this fall. I will keep you informed of the status of this issue. Thank you for
your concerns regarding residential traffic safety, if you have any questions, please give me a call.
CARLSBAD
Jim Murray
Associate Engineer
Traffic Division
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
P: (760) 602-2734
F: (760) 602-8562
Jim.Murrav@carlsbadca.gov
From: JM Mahon rmailto:immahon(a)att.netl
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:05 PM
To: Jim Murray
Subject: FW: follow up to phone call
From: JM Mahon fmailto:immahon(iQ)att,net1
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:05 PM
To: Jim Murray; Farrah Douglas; Council Internet Email
Cc: Steve Lincoln; Scott Morgan
Subject: RE: speeding mitigation on Towhee? (CRTMP Phase II eligibility)
Follow-up 11_17_2011 Towhee Traffic Mitigation
Jim,
Thanks for the update but I am now very concerned that this evaluation process or what you call
Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP) seems to be another long drawn out
bureaucratic process. When we initially talked about this program which finally got approval by the city
council a few months ago there were only 17 streets with speeding issues, now the list is 22, Based on
your estimate of the city completing 4 to 5 projects per year it will take at least 5 years to get resolution
for all 22 streets and only if other streets not discovered do not come on the scene.
I first contacted your department, traffic engineering, about speeding on Towhee in 2005 and since that
time you have been very cordial, but nothing really has happened. Since I am now semi-retired, with
less business travel, I have more time to police speeding activity on Towhee along with our
Neighborhood Watch Coordinator, Steve Lincoln. Just the other day, I was cutting my front lawn when
a Black BMW came down Towhee heading toward Aviara Pkwy at a high rate of speed nearly running
over the car in front of it. About five minutes later the same vehicle came off of Aviara Pkwy at an even
higher rate of speed going up Towhee to Nightshade. So, I got in my car tracked the vehicle down, got
the license number and contacted Lt. Reno at CPD. Over the past year based on your recommendation I
have turned in 4 vehicles and 1 FedEx truck to Lt. Reno.
First, this is not what a senior citizen should be doing; the Traffic Division should do its job and put in
methods that slow vehicles to the maximum 25 MPH in this clearly defined residential zone. Speeding
on Towhee which has been going on longer that 2005, but gotten worse since the economic depression
with homes in our neighborhood going into foreclosure or turning some into rentals thereby creating
less than committed neighbors in our neighborhood. Whatever the reason since my initial contact with
Carlsbad Traffic Division to do something constructive, the situation has only gotten worse.
For example most residents on Towhee do not allow their children in front of their homes due to
speeding and if they do they put out traffic cones to alert drivers that a child is playing close to the
street in their front yard. I am sure that this is not the quality of life our elected officials promote for its
neighborhoods based on city marketing materials displayed at the Citizens Academy.
What I don't understand is why some streets over the years have gotten preferential treatment and
ones like Towhee have not. Here are just two cases that I am aware of over the past several years. One
is Camino De Las Ondas, whose primary residential homes are not facing the street like Towhee
yet have a gauntlet of stop signs in order to break the flow of traffic, i.e., slow the speeders. These stop
signs start off of Aviara Parkway and go all the way down to the Pacific Rim elementary school. The
other case is Plum Tree Road whose residential homes are similar to Towhee with front yards facing the
street yet they have several stop signs to mitigate the flow of traffic, especially speeders.
In communication with you in June of 2010,1 provided remedies that would at least make an important
break in traffic going up and down Towhee. What the residents of Towhee received was a second 25
MPH painted in the street and second 25 MPH sign on a lamp post that was hidden from drivers by
trees. As you might suspect it was a minimal attempt and has done nothing to reduce habitual speeders.
The only thing that has worked to date with habitual speeders is for me and fellow citizens to get license
numbers, make of vehicles, time of day, calendar date, and turn them into Lt Reno. He does a great job
of getting the warning letter out, but I cannot stand guard on this street day in and day out. Case in
point I usually see at least one vehicle exhibiting excessive speed most times I am in front of my house,
going to get mail, or pulling out of my driveway. With such a random coincidence for me personally, I
question what the real count of habitual speeders are per day?
The point I am attempting to make is that the residents of Towhee cannot and should have to go
through any more hoops to get the city to permanently mitigate the continuous, habitual speeders on
our residential street. As I talk to my neighbors they are upset that after all the dialogue with city
engineers and city police a workable solution has not been provided. For example, our Neighborhood
Watch Coordinator learned this summer that there was a plan under foot by your traffic department to
increase the posted speed from 40 MPH to 45 MPH on Aviara Parkway based on some inane California
law. He along with other concerned citizens rallied several Aviara neighborhoods, the local press, and
we held a one day protest with appropriate signage on the corner of Aviara Oaks School to bring
attention to this nonsensical traffic law. It worked and the city will leave the zone 40 MPH.
Do we need to go to such extremes to have a traffic mitigation solution for Towhee?
Of the approximate 30 homes on Towhee 7 have children and 8 are senior citizens, so the potential for
some form of traffic incident is highly probable with over 50% of residents in high risk groups.
For your information, I recently attended the seven (7) session Citizens Academy to get more insight into
what my city government of almost 20 years is doing. It was a very worthwhile use of my time. First, I
learned from the Finance Department that the city has capital reserves of $600 million dollars and
second that 15% of Carlsbad housing consist of affordable, low income, housing which the city planners
seem to be very proud of
Also, what came out of these teaching sessions was a major concern by many Carlsbad residents
regarding quality of life that is tied to traffic management. I am not sure if speeding in residential areas
was singled out but with your current 22 streets of concern under evaluation it must be.
How do we get to a solution for Towhee in the near term, like next month, and not another 2 to 3 years
of continued analysis paralysis?
From my perspective as the resident traffic expert on Towhee by default there are three ways toward
mitigation and only one real practical solution.
First, we can have a CPD motor patrolman constantly stationed on Towhee to get the maximum visual
effect. Kind of like when i am out in front of my house those who are speeding see me in the front yard
and immediately break to 25 MPH. Second, I can continue to constantly monitor those habitual
speeders on Towhee and also continue to enlist the support of my neighbors so that violators can be
identified and sent to Lt. Reno.
Finally, this is the most practical and one that many of my neighbors have been asking for years. I know
that with new technology a speed bump is being replaced with a speed cushion. This solution seems to
be the most effective, most practical; it works seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day and is the
most cost effective.
Jim what does my neighborhood need to do to get to end of job on this long term traffic and quality of
life issue?
The city has $600 million in the bank and affordable housing seems to be a high priority in city planning,
while regular neighborhood needs go unmet. What about taking some of that rainy day money for
traffic mitigation and cater to the needs of resident's with a plan toward mitigating all 22 streets in a
single year.
Regards,
Joseph Michael Mahon
December 31, 2011
Lt. Reno,
As part ofthe Towhee Traffic Safety committee, I want to report another case of extreme speed in a 25
MPH residential neighborhood. I believe this is my fifth (S^^) complaint to CPD this year 4 cars and 1
commercial truck.
On 12/29,1 was going across Towhee to my car which was parked opposite my residence. As I began to
cross a late model, midsized Asian SUV, which I think was a Mazda but they all look the same to me;
came down our street toward Aviara Parkway at a high rate of speed. I estimate the vehicle with male
driver on his cell phone was traveling between 35 to 40 MPH. If I had been a young child, the incident
could have been much worse.
I was able to get a partial license number of 6ND914 the vehicle was dark gray in color, the time of day
was about 10:38 since I was going to an 11 doctor's appointment.
Just the previous day our Neighborhood Watch Coordinator and I had a visit with councilmember Farrah
Douglas to see if we could finally get a commitment from the city to mitigate speeding on Towhee by
deploying speed cushions such as on Sierra Morena.
Also, present was Bryan Jones the new Deputy Director of Traffic for the past 6 months. According to
him Towhee did not meet immediate criteria since a two day traffic sample taken several months ago
did not meet his scientific criteria for speed mitigation.
What I failed to ask him at that meeting was does his traffic department coordinate with CPD regarding
observable incidents like I am reporting today? Please let me know if resident input provided to CPD is
calculated into the scientific criteria used by the traffic department. I believe that residents of Towhee
have had at least 4 requests over as many years to get some help in mitigating speeders on Towhee and
several tests have been conducted using your pole mounted speed indicator.
Best,
Joseph Mahon
Response 1/2012CPD
Mr. Mahon, City traffic Engineering and the Police Department traffic division, which preforms speed
enforcement, has always worked hand in hand with one another and we have a great relationship. We
will continue to work collaboratively for you until there is a resolution to your issue. When the Police
Department last deployed our Speed Century, the pole mounted speed collection device, it registered
an average speed of 18 mph and showed that 85% of the cars were traveling 28 mph on Towhee
Drive. Again, as with almost all traffic enforcement issues when the police show up the speeds go way
down. Keeping this in mind that during the times that we have performed speed enforcement on
Towhee not one vehicle was traveling at a speed that required a citation to be issued.
I do show that we sent one Safe Neighborhood letter to a registered owner of a Black BMW at your
request in November. With your assistance we will continue to partner with you and write these types
of letters to the registered owners of vehicle as long as you are able to provide us with the type of
violation, date, time, vehicle description, license plate and a quick description ofthe driver.
Sincerely, Marc Reno
^ CARLSBAD
PoNce Department
Lieutenant Marc Reno
Traffic Division
2560 Orion Way
Carlsbad, CA. 92010
P: 760-931-2208
F: 760-931-8473
Carina Neighborhood Watch Traffic Safety Survey for 2012
Traffic Monitor: Mahon
Random sample Traffic Control Survey using a Bushnell Speedster III radar gun
October 1,20121 PM to 2 PM Residential Activity: Senior Citizen
13 vehicles passed the random survey window with all 13 residential vehicles scanned up and down
Towhee Lane with an average speed of 32 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. Lowest speed 25 MPH and fastest
speed 47 MPH
October 4,2012 1:10 PM to 2 PM Residential Activity: Senior Citizen
19 vehicles passed the random survey window with 17 residential and 2 commercial vehicles up and
down Towhee Lane with an average speed of 32 MPH. lowest speed was 25MPH and fastest speed was
42 MPH
October 15,2012 1:05 PM to 2 PM Residential Activity: Children at Play
12 vehicle passed the random survey window with 10 residential and 2 commercial vehicles up and
down Towhee Lane with an average speed of 29 MPH with lowest speed 25 MPH and fastest speed 40
MPH
October 29,2012 8 AM to 9 AM Residential Activity: Senior Citizen
9 vehicles passed the random survey window with 7 residential and 2 commercial vehicles up and down
Towhee Lane with an average speed of 28 MPH with the lowest speed 25 MPH and fastest speed 37
MPH
October 29,2012 2 PM to 2:30 PM Residential Activity: Senior Citizen
7 vehicles passed the random survey window with 6 residential and 1 commercial vehicle up and down
Towhee Lane with an average speed of 28 MPH with the lowest speed 25 MPH and fastest speed 34
MPH
November 20,201210 AM to 11:15 AM Residential Activity: Children at Play
27 vehicles passed the random survey window with 25 residential and 2 commercial vehicle up and
down Towhee Lane with an average speed of 30 MPH with the lowest speed 25 MPH and fastest speed
40 MPH
November 20,2012 5:30 PM to 6 PM Residential Activity: General
8 vehicles passed the random survey widow with 6 resident vehicles up and down Towhee Lane with the
average speed of 32 MPH with lowest 25 MPH and fastest speed 41 MPH
December 11,2012 4:30 PM to 5:15 PM Residential Activity: General
29 vehicles passed the random survey window with 29 residential vehicles up and down Towhee Lane
with the average speed of 29 MPH with the lowest 25 MPH and the fastest speed 45 MPH
December 16,2012 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM Residential Activity: General
16 vehicles passed the random survey window with 16 residential vehicles up and down Towhee Lane
with the average speed of 30 MPH with the lowest 25 MPH and the fastest speed 46 MPH
June 12,2012 1:30 to 2:30 PM Residential Activity: Senior Citizen
29 vehicles passed the random survey window with 25 residential and 4 commercial up and down
Towhee Lane with an average speed of 26 MPH with the lowest 25 MPH and the fastest speed 40 MPH
CARLSBAD
www.carlsbadca.gov
January 3, 2012
NOTICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING STREETS QUALIFYING FOR PHASE II
OF THE CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The purpose of this letter is to follow up on your concerns about speeding and your request for traffic
calming. You are invited and encouraged to attend the Traffic Safety Commission meeting on January 9,
2012 at 3:00 PM at the Carlsbad City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. The
commission will hear a presentation from Transportation Department staff on which residential streets
meet the requirements and thresholds established by City Council and the Traffic Safety Commission to
proceed to Phase II ofthe Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP).
As you may know. City Council adopted the CRTMP in May 2011 and staff has used the criteria outlined
in this program to evaluate your street for possible implementation of Phase II, which include residential
STOP signs, speed cushions and speed tables. Since there are twenty-four residential streets that are
possible candidates for Phase II consideration, it was necessary to identify which residential streets
qualify for Phase li traffic calming using a criteria based on a quantifiable, data-driven approach. Staff
will present this list of which streets do and do not qualify to the Traffic Safety Commission. Since you
were a resident that requested traffic calming, we are inviting you as a representative for your street to
hear and comment on the presentation to the Traffic Safety Commission. Staff will explain the CRTMP
Phase II process and the criteria used to determine Phase II eligibility.
Members of the pubic attending the meeting will have the opportunity to address the Traffic Safety
Commission regarding the CRTMP and the Phase II process and eligibility criteria, if you would like to
address the Traffic Safety Commission on this item, you will need to fill out a blue REQUEST TO SPEAK
FORM located on the table when you enter the City Council Chambers, and give it to the Minutes Clerk
before the item is called.
BACKGROUND
In May 2011, the City Council approved revisions to the city's traffic calming program, the Carlsbad
Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP). Phase II of the CRTMP now includes the ability to
consider residential STOP signs, speed tables and speed cushions as traffic calming measures on
residential streets that meet the minimum critical speed threshold of 32 miles per hour, provided that
the proposed measures have the consensus support of the residents. The Carlsbad Residential Traffic
Management Program can be viewed on the city's website www.carlsbadca.gov under the
Transportation Department
Staff has evaluated all of the candidate residential streets and has determined which streets meet the
minimum critical speed threshold of 32 MPH necessary to move forward into Phase II of the CRTMP. If a
street does not meet the minimum 32 MPH critical speed eligibility, staff, in conjunction with the
residents on the street, can continue to utilize solutions from Phase I of the CRTMP program. Please
refer to Table 1 for the list of streets that are eligible for Phase II and Table 2 for the list of streets that
are not eligible.
Transportation Department
1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 ! 760-602-2730 i 760-602-8562 fax
January 3, 2012
NOTICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING STREETS QUALIFYING FOR PHASE II
OF THE CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 2
TABLE 1:
Streets ELIGIBLE for Phase II Traffic Calming
1. Magnolia Avenue (Highland Drive to Pio Pico Drive)
2. Esfera Street (Cadencia Street to Piragua Street)
3. Levante Street (Escenico Terrace to La Costa Avenue)
4. Chestnut Avenue (Pontiac Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue)
5. Corintia Street (Alga Road to El Fuerte Street)
6. Daisy Avenue (Rose Drive to Batiquitos Drive)
7. Pontiac Drive (Victoria Avenue to Spokane Way)
8. Trieste Drive (Chestnut Avenue to Milano Drive)
9. Estrella de Mar Road (Alga Road to Arenal Road)
TABLE 2:
Streets NOT ELIGIBLE for Phase II Traffic Calming
1. Garfield Street (Pine Avenue to Tamarack Avenue)
2. Town Garden Road (Alicante Road to Village Green Drive)
3. Xana Way (Alga Road to Corintia Street)
4. Unicornio Street (Corintia Street to El Fuerte Street)
5. El Arbol Drive (Cannon Road to Manzano Drive)
6. Knowles Avenue (Jefferson Street to 1-5)
7. Camino Coronado (Calle Jallisco to Calle Cozumel)
8. Los Robels Drive (Cannon Road to Manzano Drive)
9. Forest Avenue (Highland Drive to Crest Drive)
10. Edinburgh Drive (Tamarack Avenue to east terminus)
11. Glasgow Drive (Edinburgh Drive to south terminus)
12. Galena Avenue (Alicante Road to Goldstone Road)
13. Camino del Parque (Paseo del Norte to Paseo del Norte)
14. Towhee Lane (Nightshade Road to Aviara Parkway)
15. Mariposa Rd (Torreyanna Circle to Mariposa Road)
City staff also prioritized the streets that met the critical speed threshold based on a point scoring
system. This was done to identify the streets with the greatest need so that staff can maximize their
efforts where it is needed most. It is important to note that just because a street meets the minimum
criteria and has a high priority ranking based on the point scoring system does not necessarily mean that
traffic calming will be installed on the street. The residents on that street will need to work
collaboratively with each other and city staff to identify the devices used for traffic calming and the
location of such devices within the residential neighborhood prior to installation.
January 3, 2012
NOTICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING STREETS QUALIFYING FOR PHASE II
OF THE CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 3
Thank you again for your concerns and for your patience. We hope you are able to attend the Traffic
Safety Commission meeting on Monday, January, 9, 2012. More detailed information on the approved
CRTMP is available at the City of Carlsbad webpage at www.carlsbadca.gov under Transportation
Department. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Murray at (760) 602-2734.
JIM MURRAY
Associate Engineer
Traffic Division
Lisa Hildabrand, City Manager
Conrad "Skip" Hammann, P.E., Transportation Director
Bryan Jones, TE., P.T.P., A.I.C.P., Deputy Transportation Director
John Kim, P.E., T.E., Associate Engineer
Carlsbad streets to become more "livable^'
February 21, 2012
The Carlsbad City Council heard an update today about how trends in street design can improve
traffic flow, make roads safer and contribute to a more vibrant community and economy.
"There is a growing realization that streets should be designed more for people, not just cars,"
said City of Carlsbad Deputy Transportation Director Bryan Jones. "It's amazing how a few
changes in street design can have such a positive effect on a community's health, safety,
economy and social vitality."
The livable streets concept, also called "complete streets," acknowledges that streets are an
important part of the livability of today's communities and ought to be for everyone, whether
young or old, motorist or bicyclist, walker or wheelchair user, bus rider or shopkeeper.
In 2008, the state of California passed the Complete Streets Act, which requires cities and
counties to include complete streets policies as part of their general plans. The City of Carlsbad
is in the process of updating its general plan, incorporating input received during a program
called Envision Carlsbad. Through Envision Carlsbad, the community identified a number of
core values important to the future of Carlsbad, such as improved community connectivity
through walking, biking and public transportation.
The Carlsbad City Council also identified livable streets as a top priority at its annual goal setting
workshop in January.
At Tuesday's workshop, city transportation staff showed a number of examples of livable streets
concepts, including some existing already in Carlsbad.
"There are many ways to make streets more livable," said Jones. "We want to work with local
residents and businesses to see what street design features would best support Carlsbad's vision
for the future."
Some of the more common strategies to make streets more "livable" include:
• Creating a buffer between walking paths and traffic.
Using roundabouts or traffic circles instead of traffic signals or stop signs to keep traffic
continually flowing at safe speeds while improving access for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Creating wider walkways, outdoor dining, landscaped areas and benches to encourage
people to gather outdoors, especially around shopping and dining areas.
Decreasing the distance for pedestrians to cross streets by adding more sidewalk space
and raised medians.
Creating more clearly defined bike lanes and placing the lanes where bikes will have
fewer conflicts with cars.
Slowing traffic in residential neighborhoods.
Connecting sidewalks, bike lanes and trails to transit stops.
Jones presented to the City Council a potential livable streets demonstration project, which
would include replacing the intersection at State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard with a
roundabout and improving pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure with sidewalks, bike lanes and
a trail across the Buena Vista Lagoon. Jones said the project would help bridge a gap in the
Coastal Rail Trail at the north end of the city and create a more clearly defined and welcoming
entrance to Carlsbad from Oceanside. These improvements would also enhance safety and access
to many local businesses in the Village and the Coaster Transit Station.
The City Council directed staff to farther develop the State Street demonstration project and
identify other opportunities to make Carlsbad streets more livable. Jones said city staff are in the
process of meeting with representatives of local groups and individuals to get input on
opportunities to use livable street design in Carlsbad.
For more information
Bryan Jones, deputy director, City of Carlsbad Transportation Department, 760-602-2431, or
bryan.jones@carlsbadca.gov
Media contact
Kristina Ray, 760-434-2957 or kristina.ray@carlsbadca.gov
From city newsletter May 2112
There's a growing realization that streets should be designed for people, not just cars," said
Bryan Jones, Carlsbad's deputy transportation director. "Livable streets are about making streets
welcoming and inviting for everybody, whether you ride a bicycle, walk on the sidewalk or drive
a vehicle. And they enhance the safety for everybody on the street."
April 8, 2012
Mayor Hall
City of Carlsbad
As you requested during our meeting on February 27^^ with the Director of Transportation you would
like to see a majority of residents on Towhee sign a petition requesting the city provide speed cushions
in order to limit habitual speeding on our street.
Attached is petition with 22 signatures ofthe 26 residential units on Towhee. The 4 not signed were
those who could not be contacted after several calls. In all those who signed are enthusiastic about
have a method that limits those commercial and residential speeders up and down Towhee from Avira
Parkway to Nightshade.
Regards,
Joseph Mahon
» jjgfe ^%
,,1^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^
Petition summary and
background Towhee Lane residents have worked with Carisbad Agencies' since 2005 to deliver a system(s) that reduces speeding In
excess of 25 MPH making our residential street unsafe. We want 1/2012 "livable streets" implemented now
Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our City Council leaders to act now to provide a physical restriction
such as 2 speed cushions which are considered a best practice in many Califomia communities to insure that 25 MPH Is
standard traffic flow in residential neighborhoods. Reference Residential Street Standards & Neighborhood Traffic Control*
Printed Name
Joseph Mahon
Address
6646 Towhee
Towhee CC^L.
Towhee
Comment
A 7 year effort working with the
city to curb speeding on our street
Date
12/7/12
\t2j
'/"/ I3>
Towhee
Towhee
tyf&r^ Li^^l/0^
Towhee
tH/l l/l SI '
Towhee
Towhee A
Towhee
Towhee
Towhee
Towhee
H M > titlll U I U * . . t. ^. 4. ^ / .. .. w w ^ ^ ^
Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date Towhee (^(^((9
Towhee
U/I^JIV/ZA
Towhee
Towhee
Towhee
buy Towhee
r^U^l_ f^vX/lxX Towhee
Towhee
AVIARA
MASTER A.SSOCL\TI()N
March 13, 2013
Michael Mahon
6646 Towhee Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Re: Speed Cushions - Carina
Dear Mr. Mahon:
This letter is written on behalf of the Aviara Master Association (AMA) Board of Directors in
response to your request of the AMA Board to allocate AMA funds toward the installation of
speed cushions in Carina.
The AMA Board elected to have the association's legal counsel review the request and give a
recommendation. Legal counsel's recommendation does not advise that the AMA Board allocate
AMA funds to the installation of speed cushions within Carina.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
MdU. (ih
Adrian McKibbin, PCAM^., CCAM®
Community Association Manager
Aviara Master Association
AM: vt
roio AVKNHM KiSCIiNAS, SUITE B20(>. CARLSBAD, CAI.IKOKMA «>2(HM)
(760) 4:51-7874 OFFICE (760) i:51-7061 FAX
Speed tables
14' Speed table
Recommended for 25 MPH speed zones
This is one of our most popular traffic
calming devices. Our 14' speed table is
3" high and has a 7' flat-topped table in
the center. Designed to slow vehicles to
around 25 MPH, a common speed limit
on many residential roadways. This speed
table encourages motorists to slow down
while allowing drivers to continue on their
way without having to stop.
14' speed table 1485-00058 $4,963.95
21'Speed table
Recommended for 30 MPH speed zones
This solution provides the smoothest ride
of all our traffic calming devices. With a 14'
long table in the center ofthe device, this
speed table is often used on roads where
vehicle speed and volume are higher than
on smaller residential streets.
21'speed table 1485-00060 $7,159.50
RECOMMENDED
SPEED
LIMIT
————J
Speed cushions
Recommended for 25 MPH speed zones
This unique solution was designed to
slow down residential motorists while
allowing emergency-vehicles to pass
with ease. They are placed only in the
lane of traffic with gaps in between for
emergency-response vehicles to straddle.
Residential vehicles have a narrower
wheelbase forcing them to drive
over the device. 7' L x 6' W x 3" H
Speed cushion 1485-00062 $863.95
800-236-0112 FAX 800-444-0331 www.tapconet.com
HP PhotoSmart C7200 All-in-One series Power-Fail Report for
JM Mahon
760 930 9602
Dec 09 2012 11:43AM
A power failure occurred during the following transactions:
These faxes were in the process of being received but were not completely printed:
Date Time Type Station ID Duration Pages Result
Dec 8 4:18PM Received 0:00 0 Power failure
Appendix A
City of Dana Point
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
SEPTEMBER 2005
^Residential e/l&ighborhood
<^affic e/^nagement ^lan
repared
Christopher H. Nguyen, P.E.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(714) 641-1587
^^ntributors:
Brad Fowler, P.E., Director of Public Works
Matthew Sinacori, P.E., City Engineer
City of Dana Point
33282 Street of the Golden Lantern
Dana Point. California 92629
(949) 248-3554
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
The City of Dana Point continually strives to strengthen and protect its constituents by
improving the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. Traffic conditions on
residential streets can greatly affect neighborhood livability. Given that residential
streets are an important component to a community's living environment, it is essential
to promote safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and
residents along neighboriiood streets.
Traffic calming is one measure available to the City of Dana Point to address
undesirable traffic characteristics within residential neighborhoods. The term "traffic
calming" is typically defined as:
"...the combihoffon of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve condifions
for non-motorized street users." Adopted by Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE).
The City of Dana Point expands this definition to also include consideration of non-
physical measures, such as educational programs and enhanced traffic law
enforcement.
In an effort to improve the livability, vitality, and character of residential streets, the
Public Works Department has developed this Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan.
This plan provides a framework for the consideration, selection, and implementation of
traffic calming measures in the City of Dana Point. This document is primarily intended
to be used by City staff and neighborhood residents for implementing traffic calming
measures in an effective and consistent manner while recognizing cost constraints. This
traffic management plan has been developed in recognition of proven positive
experiences and practices of other communities, and reflects the best practices of
traffic engineering.
Under this plan, the City will work with residents to identify traffic problems and seek
appropriate solutions. Citizen participation is an important part of all traffic calming
projects. Experience in other cities has shown that traffic calming projects that are
implemented without involving the neighborhood are frequently unsuccessful, often
resulting in the subsequent removal of well intended but unaccepted traffic calming
measures. It is the intent of this plan to provide residents the opportunity to become
actively involved in the planning and decision making process.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
1
Section
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Goals and Strategies
3.0 Policies
4.0 Criteria
5.0 Procedures
6-0 Funding Considerations
Page No.
1
3
4
6
8
11
7.0 Traffic Calming Devices {"Toolbox") 12
8.0 References 58
Residentiai Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
ii
it IS important to note that the City will generally take unilateral action to resolve issues
of traffic safety where warrants dictate established safety standards must be met
However, traffic calming efforts that are the primary subject of this plan are more
subjective or perceptive by nature. Therefore, traffic calming measures may be
desirable to some and not to others, balancing reduced speed with traffic
conveyance, infrastructure aesthetics or parking needs. Decisions may be reached
through participative means and funding may not be available for traffic calming
infrastructure as traffic calming effects are more qualitative than proscribed.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Poini
September 2005
2
The City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan is a comprehensive process for
reducing and managing traffic speeds, traffic volumes, and traffic-collision events, as
well as improving pedestrian/bicyclist safety conditions on local streets. The goals of this
plan are:
1. To improve neighborhood livability by reducing adverse impacts of traffic in
residential neighborhoods, by promoting safe and pleasant conditions for all
users of local streets.
2. To provide a plan that City officials and the general public are confident in as an
effective and fair tool in evaluating traffic issues and allocating limited taxpayer
resources.
3. To provide a standard format for dealing with traffic issues in an effective, cost
conscious, reasonable, and consistent manner.
4. To encourage appropriate public involvement in the traffic calming process.
These goals can be achieved through a combination of several parallel strategies,
known collectively as the "Three E's":
1. Education - Residents receive the information and tools necessary to become
active participants in addressing their neighborhood traffic concerns;
2. Engineering - Engineering principles are used to develop traffic calming
strategies that effectively address community-identified traffic issues; and
3. Enforcement - Targeted police enforcement supports the traffic calming plan
developed by Public Works staff and residents.
The role of these strategies in supporting the goals is to articulate the method by which
actions are considered and selected for use in meeting the goals.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
3
The following guidelines are recommended to guide City staff, the community the
Traffic improvement Subcommittee, and the City Council in selecting a7p?£ate
measures for each individual case: appropnate
^" L^ttin'L'^A''^^ encourage the use of the Arterial Street System as designated
within the City s Circulation Element by completing and improving the system to
the requirements designated in the City's General Plan.
2. A combination of education, engineering, and enforcement strategies should
be employed as the initial phase of any traffic calming/management strategy
Subsequent actions should be planned and designed In keeping with proven
sound engineenng and planning practices. The City Traffic Engineer shall direct
the investigation, analysis, and installation of devices as needed to accomplish a
project, in compliance with Federal, State, and Local standards and
acceptable professional traffic engineering practices.
3. Emergency vehicle access should be accommodated consistent with response
standards. If current emergency vehicle access does not meet the existing
response standard, traffic calming efforts should not further degrade the
response ttme. However, traffic calming actions which affect response on streets
that meet existing response standards may be considered with resident
knowledge and consent.
4 Transit service and school bus access, safety, and scheduling should not be
significantly impacted by traffic calming/management measures.
5. Reasonable automobile access should be maintained. Pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit access should be encouraged and enhanced wherever possible.
6. Parking removal is to be considered on a project-by-project basis. Parking needs
of residents should be balanced with the important functions of traffic,
emergency vehicle access, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement!
However, it should be acknowledged that the implementation of many of the
traffic calming measures would require elimination of on-street parking spaces.
7. Application of this Neighbortiood Traffic Management Plan is limited to those
neighborinood streets that are primarily residential.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
4
8. Traffic can be re-routed from one local street to another as a result of a traffic
calming project. The acceptable traffic diversion should be defined on a
project-by-project basis and those impacted so advised and included in the
decision making process.
9- To implement the Residential Neighbortiood Traffic Management Plan, consistent
procedures should be followed by Cify staff in processing traffic calming requests
in accordance with applicable codes and related policies. At a minimum, the
procedures defined in the foflowing sections of this plan shall provide for
submittal of project proposals, project evaluation and selection, citizen
participation, and for Traffic Improvement Subcommittee and City Council
review and approval where appropriate.
10. The potential increased liability (If any) to the City associated with the installation
of traffic calming devices, should be assessed by the City Attorney, if necessary,
on a project-by-project basis and considered before installation.
11. It is recognized that the City has limited resources and will have to prioritize
projects for funding. Cost sharing options between the City and the area
residents may be considered for the implementation of the recommended
measures, especially for any unfunded projects.
Residential Neighbortiood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
5
In an effort to maximize the benefits of this plan through effective allocation of
personnel and financial resources fairly city-wide, a "candidate" street must meet
specific criteria before a traffic calming/management study is undertaken.
Candidate street(s) shall meet all of the following requirements;
1. Street must not provide more than one lane in each direction.
2. Street must not be wider than 42 feet (curb-to-curb).
3. Street must provide access to residential developments or have primarily
residential homes fronting the street.
4. Street must not provide primary access to a fire station or medical facility served
by ambulances or other paramedic-type vehicles.
5- For major traffic calming projects:
a. An 85^*^ percentile speed in excess of 34 mph or 10 mph over the speed
limit. The speed surveys are to be collected by machine road tubes for a
minimum period of 24 consecutive hours v/ith a minimum sampling of 50
vehicles per direction.
i. !f two or more reported accidents of types susceptible to
correction by speed reduction measures have occurred within a
recent twelve month period, the 85**^ percentile speed threshold
may be reduced to 30 mph for consideration of a project.
b. A street or streef segment shall have a minimum length of 800 feet
uninterrupted by a traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign, or other traffic
controL
c. A minimum average daily traffic volume of 1,000 vehicles per day, total of
both directions.
6. Minor traffic calming projects including warranted stop signs or speed humps
may be considered on streets with 85'^^ percentile speeds of 30 mph to 34 mph
and traffic volumes of 500 vehicles per day, but must still be at least 800 feet
uninterrupted in length.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
6
7. For a traffic volume mitigation project, the average daily traffic volume must be
in excess of 2,500 vehicles per day, total of both directions, and the daily traffic
volume must be 10% greater than that expected per current iTE Trip GeneraWon.
The traffic volume surveys are to be collected by machine road tubes for three
days (weekend day may be included).
It should be noted that street projects meeting the criteria (above) are dependent
upon available funding and other traffic safety project priorities (detailed in Section 6.0
of this report). Potential traffic calming projects will be prioritized will be based on
existing speeds, accident history data, and traffic volumes.
It should also be noted that existing horizontal and vertical traffic conditions might
prohibit the implementation of some traffic calming projects. For example, speed
humps may not be installed on streets with vertical grades greater than 6.0%.
Installation criteria are detailed in Section 7.0 {Traffic Calming Devices) of this report.
It is recognized that slower traffic speeds on residential streets are generally desirable. It
is also recognized that California speed laws generally set in 5 mph increments based
upon 85^^ percentile speeds, the underlying premise being that drivers will travel at a
speed they believe is safe on average and that speed limits and enforcement should
be accommodated on that basis. Cities are generally prevented from arbitrarily
posting speed limit signs at speeds greater than 5 mph below the 85<^ percentile speed.
It is typically the case that 85*^ percentile speeds are normally in excess of the speed
limit by up to 4 mph {e.g., a 25 mph street will typically exhibit 85^^^ percentile speeds of
26 mph to 29 mph, in normal circumstances). Therefore, streets exhibiting speeds within
this range should not be considered for projects but may need other minor traffic
calming actions listed later herein.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
7
The procedures specified in this section are the City's policy for processing requests for
TZlTl^^^^^^^ ''f'' ^^'"^'"9 special cases or reque!^ not foreseen in these procedures will be determined administratively by the City Traffic
r^'TTo f ? ^'''''^^T' ^^^P'^^^^nt the City's Municipal Code, Ordinances and
Councd Resolutions and do not supersede them. In the case of any apparent conflict
those shall prevail over this document. ^t^nnici,
1. Interested parties will obtain a copy of the City's Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan. If the applicant wishes to proceed, he/she will submit a
written request that explains his/her specific traffic concerns and identifies a
recommended traffic calming project device, if any (traffic calming devices or
'toolbox" are detailed at the rear of this plan).
a. If an issue had previously been evaluated in the prior 24-month period
then the resident will be informed of the results of the previous evaluation
and action. No further evaluation will be performed until additional time
elapses (Le., 24 months after the initial traffic evaluation or action) or the
City Traffic Engineer determines a need has arisen (changes in traffic
condifions) or the City Council so directs.
b. An evaluation of traffic calming measures may also be initiated if directed
by the City Council or Traffic Improvement Subcommittee, or if City staff
observes a potential traffic safety issue.
2. The City Traffic Engineer will collect traffic data (i.e., vehicular speed data, traffic
volume data, traffic collision history, street characteristics, etc.).
3. The City Traffic Engineer shall evaluate the request with respect to the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan criteria (detailed above). If these
requirements are not met, the applicant shall be so advised.
4. If traffic data does not satisfy the requirements for a major traffic calming project
recommendation, then minor improvements may be implemented as
determined by the City Traffic Engineer as follows (listed in no particular order):
• Submit request to the Chief of Police for increased police enforcement
• Placement of radar speed trailer
• Letters sent out to residents within the neighborhood discussing the
speeding concerns and request to slow down {education)
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
8
Installation of speed limit signs (e.g., 25 mph)
installation of speed limit pavement mari<ings (e.g., 25 mph)
Installation of "Radar Enforced" signs (to supplement speed limit signs)
Installation of appropriate Warning signs
Installation of V-Calm device {e.g., electronic speed sign) for a temporary
period of time
Paint Edgelines
Paint Centeriines
Other minor traffic control devices as approved in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices {MUTCD)
5. If all sections of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan criteria are satisfied,
then the following actions are taken:
a. Implement minor improvements indicated in Item 4 (above),
b- After a period of four (4) months, the City Traffic Engineer will collect new
traffic data - if the issue is "solved" (i.e., traffic speeds and/or volumes
decrease to acceptable levels), then no further action is required. If not,
then the following major or minor traffic improvements project evaluation
will occur:
1. City Traffic Engineer will investigate other potential solutions (i.e..
Traffic Calming "toolbox") and estimate associated costs (design
and construction).
ii. Potential solutions are provided to Fire Authority and Police
Department for review and comment.
iii. City Traffic Engineer will prepare a prefen-ed solution and
neighborhood contact will be made to help develop a preferred
solution (solutions presented to the residents will only include those
reviewed first by the Fire Authority and Police Department),
iv. Advisory survey will be sent to all impacted residents as determined
by City staff and a 67% approval rate will be required for further
action.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
9
6.
V, If a traffic calming device receives o 67% (minimum) approval rate,
the issue will be taken to the Traffic Improvement Subcommittee to
discuss the project proposal, findings and prioritization. The traffic
Improvement Subcommittee will make a recommendation to the
City Council,
vi. City Council will determine appropriate action.
If traffic data does not satisfy the requirements for a major traffic calming project
recommendation, but the 85"^ percentile speed data is found to exceed the
speed limit by 5 mph to 9 mph, then the City Traffic Engineer may recommend
and implement project solutions following steps 5i-iv (without needing 5v-vi) if so
directed by the City Engineer. However, traffic calming improvements for such
cases will be limited to those that are relatively inexpensive and do not require
major infrastructure improvements {i.e., speed humps, turn restrictions, basket
weave stop signs. Yield signs, etc.)
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
10
Funding for the implementation of a traffic calming project should be considered
throughout the plan development process. If funding limitations will impact the range
of options available, this needs to be identified early in the process and the variety of
appropriate devices should refiect these limitations. It should be noted that some traffic
calming improvement measures are expensive {i.e., chokers, diverters, street closures,
mini-roundabouts, curvilinear reconstruction, etc.) and may not have adequate
funding for that fiscal year. The City's Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan operates on a limited budget, which is approved annually by the City Council.
The annual City budget allocated to traffic calming projects is typically developed for
minor traffic calming improvement projects, including speed humps. As such, traffic
calming projects should be prioritized based on existing speeds, accident history data,
and traffic volumes. The prioritization of projects should be recommended by the Traffic
Improvement Subcommittee and ultimately approved by the City Council.
If a neighborhood requests to implement a more extensive project than what City staff
believes is appropriate to resolve an identified problem{s), then the City Council may
need to approve the project with additional funds and/or the neighborhood may
request to participate in funding all or a part of the project. Projects for which a 100%
funding commitment by the neighborhood is received will be moved forward to
implementafion by the City upon completion of the design process.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
11
The following pages are representative examples of traffic calming devices that may
be recommended and used as part of this plan. Other traffic calming improvement
measures not detailed in this section may be implemented if approved by the City
Traffic Engineer.
Residential Neighbortiood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
12
7.1 Ali Way Slop ** * * * *
7.2 Basket Weaving Stop Signs * *** * * * *
7.3 Chicanes / Curvllnear Reconstruction ** ** * * * ***
7.4 Chokers * ** * * ***
7.5 Crossing Islands * * ** * * **
7.6 Curb Extensions / Bulb-Outs ** ** * * * ***
7.7 Deflections / Diverters ** ** ** *** *** * ***
7.8 Gateways * ** * * * * **
7.9 Inaeased Police Enforcement * *** ** * * * **
7.10 Mini-Roundabouts * ** * * ** ***
7.11 Pavemenl Markings - Edgelines * * * * * *
7.12 Paving Materials * * ** * * * ^*
7.13 Raised Crosswalks ** *** ** * ** ** **
7.14 Raised Intersections ** *** ** * ** ** •1* ^ *!•
7,15 Rumble Strips * * ** * * * *
7.16 Speed Humps ** )(k 9|£ Sfc * **
7.17 Speed Watch * sfc <ffe ^ ** * * *
7.18 street Closure ** *** ** *** H« ^ * * **
7.19 Variable Speed Display * *** ** * * * *
Key
1^ Low, Unlikely, No
Mid, Moderate, Possible
*** High, Likely. Yes
'NO SCALE
FIGURE 7.0.A
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
13
The A4anuo/ On Uniform Traffic Control Devices {MUTCD) has established specific
warrants for the installation of ali-way stops. These warrants were developed to assist in
determining whether or not all way stop signs could help assign right-of-way at higher
volume intersections, reduce accident problems, mitigate sight distance issues, or fill-in
as an interim measure until traffic signals could be installed.
Purpose
To designate vehicular right-of-way and potentially reduce accidents.
Consideration
Studies have shown that all way stop signs may generally not be an effective technique
for controlling speeds and should not be used to reduce traffic volumes. It should be
noted that stop signs constitute one of the most significant means of separating and
controlling traffic movements and should be carefully considered.
In some cases, accidents actually can increase, possibly due to the stop signs being
unexpected or deemed unnecessary. In addition, speeds may increase in the mid-
block areas. Additional stops may also increase noise and air pollution.
Estimate Cost
$2,000 per intersection, including the stop signs, advance warning signs, and pavement
mari^ings.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Managemenf Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
14
f
FIGURE 7.1.A
140 SCALE
ALL-WAY STOP
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFHC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
15
The use of alternating two-way stop control within an area of local residential streets
can reduce accidents. The stop control is altemated every other block crea ^ig a
basket-weave- effect of traffic controL Traffic can proceed through one inttsectfon
but must then stop at the next. For roadway segments that do not have the%hf^^
way, speeds may be reduced within 200 feet of the intersection.
Purpose
Reduce speeds but only if the intersections are close to each other.
Consideration
On the portions of roadway which have the right-of-way, there is a potential increase in
speed, especially when fairly long stretches of uninterrupted roadway are on either side
of the intersection. The increase in speed frequently leads to requests for all-way stoo
controL ^ ^
At two-way stop controlled intersections, the stops are typically installed on the minor
approach legs (i.e., Intersection legs with less traffic volumes). Careful consideration
should be given when stopping the major approach legs, given that these stops may
be ignored. There is some possibility of creating a disrespect for all stop signs and traffic
control in general because the drivers frequently do not encounter another vehicle
view the control as unnecessary, and "run" the stop sign.
Estimate Cost
$2,000 per intersection, including the stop signs, advance warning signs, pavement
maricings, and removal of stop signs or pavement markings.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
16
J
Vl
NO SCALE
SI
FIGURE
BASKET WEAVE STOP SIGNS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
17
Chicanes or curvilinear reconstruction projects create a horizontal curvature on
previously straight alignment streets. Shifting a travel lane has an effect on speeds as
ong as the taper is not so gradual that motorists can maintain speeds. Shifts in
travelways can be created by shifting pari<ing from one side to the other {if there is only
space for one side of parking) or by building landscaped islands (islands can also
effectively supplement the parking shift).
Purpose
• Reduce vehicle speeds.
• May potentially add more landscaping to a street.
Consideration
• Chicanes may reduce on-street parking.
• Maintain good visibility by planting only low shrubs or trees with high canopies.
• Ensure that bicyclist safety and mobility are not diminished.
Estimate Cost
Costs for landscaped chicanes are approximately $15,000 to $30,000 (for a set of three
chicanes). Drainage and utility relocation often represent the most significant cost
consideration.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
18
CF
NO SCALE
FIGURE 7.3.A
CHICANES / CURVIUNEAR
RECONSTRUCTION (MID-BLOCK)
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
19
NO SCALE
FIGURE
CHICANES / CURVILINEAR
RECONSTRUCTION (INTERSECTION)
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
20
Chokers are curb extensions that narrow a street by widening the sidewalks or planting
strips, effectively creating a pinch point along the street. Chokers can be created by
bringing both curios in, or they can be done by more dramatically widening one side at
a mid-block location. They con also be used at intersections, creating a gateway
effect when entering a street.
Chokers can have a dramatic effect by reducing a two-lane street to one lane at the
choker point (or two narrow lanes), requiring motorists to yield to each other or slow
down. In order for this to function effectively, the width of the travelway cannot be
wide enough for two cars to pass - 16 ft is generally effective {and will allow emergency
vehicles to pass unimpeded). This kind of design is usually only appropriate for low-
volume, low-speed streets.
Purpose
• Slow vehicles at a mid-point along the street.
• Create a clear transition between a commercial and a residential area.
• Narrow overty wide intersections and mid-block areas of streets.
• Add room along the sidewalk or planting strip for landscaping or street furniture.
• Chokers may reduce on-street paricing.
Consideration
• If two travel lanes are maintained on a two-way street and/or the travel-lane widths
ore unchanged (at the location of the choker), it will have a minimal effect on
speed-
• Ensure that bicyclist safety and mobility are not diminished.
EstiiTKite Cost
$5,000 to $20,000 depending on site conditions and landscaping,
represent a significant cost.
Drainage may
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
21
FIGURE 7.4.A
NO SCALE
CHOKERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
22
Crossing islands (also known as center islands, refuge islands, pedestrian islands, or
median slow points) are raised islands placed in the center of the street at intersections
or mid-block to help protect crossing pedestrians from motor vehicles. Center crossing
islands allow pedestrians to deal with only one direction of traffic at a time, and they
enable them to stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic
before crossing the second half of the street. Where mid-block or intersection crosswalks
are installed at uncontrolled locations (i.e., where no traffic signals or stop signs exist),
crossing islands should be considered as a supplement to the crosswalk.
This kind of facility has been demonstrated to significantly decrease the percentage of
pedestrian collisions. The factors contributing to pedestrian safety include reduced
conflicts, reduced vehicle speeds approaching the island (the approach can be
designed to force a greater slowing of cars, depending on how dramatic the curvature
is), greater attention called to the existence of a pedestrian crossing, opportunities for
additional signs in the middle of the road, and reduced exposure time for pedestrians.
Curb extensions may be built in conjunction with center crossing islands where there is
on-street parking. Care should be taken to maintain bicycle access.
Purpose
• Enhance pedestrian crossings, particulariy at uncontrolled crossing points.
• Reduce vehicle speeds approaching pedestrian crossings.
• May reduce on-street parking.
Consideration
• Design Islands to accommodate pedestrians in wheelchairs. A cut-through design
must include detectable warnings.
• Crossing islands at intersections or near driveways may affect left-turn access.
Estimate Cost
Costs range from $5,000 to $30,000 for crossing islands that are 100 feet in length or
shorter. Landscaping may add to the costs.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
23
k
L
(9
Nil
NO SCALE
FIGURE 7,5.A
CROSSING ISLANDS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFRC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
24
Curb extensions (also known as bulb-outs or neckdowns) extend the sidewalk or curb
line out into the parking lane, which reduces the effective street width. Curb extensions
significantly improve pedestrian crossings by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance,
visually and physically narrowing the roadway, improving the ability of pedestrians and
motorists to see each other, and reducing the time that pedestrians are in the sti-eet.
Motorists are encouraged to travel more slowly at intersections or mid-block locations
with curb extensions, as the restricted street width sends a visual cue to motorists.
Purpose
• Improve safety for pedestrians at intersections by shortening the crossing distance.
• Increase visibility and reduces the speed of turning vehicles.
• Encourage pedestrians to cross at designated locations.
• Prevent motor vehicles from parking at corners.
Consideration
• Curb extensions should only be used where there is a parking lane,
• Mid-block extensions provide an opportunity to enhance mid-block crossings..
• The turning needs of larger vehicles, such as school buses, need to be considered in
curb extension design.
• Ensure that curb extension design facilitates adequate drainage-
Estimate Cost
Curb extensions cost from $5,000 to $25,000 per corner, depending on design and site
conditions. Drainage is usually the most significant determinant of cost. If the curb
extension area is large and special pavement and street furnishings and planting are
included, costs would also be higher. Costs can go up significantly if something major,
such as a utility pole or controller box, is moved.
Residentiai Neighbortiood Traffic Management Plon, Dana Point
September 2005
25
FIGURE 7.6.A
NO SCALE
CURB EXTENSIONS / BULB-OUTS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
26 ~~
JJ
Deflections refer to the physical means for preventing a lane movement. This often
times involves a barrier to deflect the ti-affic into a specific movement. This barrier is
placed at the intersection with the specific intent to channelize fuming movements.
The primary use is to shift-and re-route vehicles in the cases of excessive "cut-through"
traffic.
Purpose
To reduce traffic flow onto a local street by forcing traffic onto a collector street.
Reduces traffic noise on local streets.
Consideration
This wili increase traffic flow in the diverted direction, which needs to be accounted for.
The barriers are very restrictive forms of traffic management and have significant
impacts on area wide traffic patterns. Their placement should only be considered after
a comprehensive traffic study and through active community participation and public
hearings.
Estimate Cost
$5,000 to $35,000 depending on site conditions and landscaping. Drainage may
represent a significant cost.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
27
NO SCALE
FIGURE 7.7.A
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
28
FIGURE 7.7.B
VP. NO SCALE
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
29
FIGURE 7.7.C
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
30
NO SCALE
I
FIGURE 7.7.D
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
31
NO SCALE
FIGURE 7.7.E
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
32 J)
FIGURE 7.7.F
NO SCALE
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
33
•
NO SCALE
FIGURE 7.7.G
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
34
J)
FIGURE 7.7.H
'NO SCALE
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
35
FIGURE 7.7,1
DEFLECTIONS / DIVERTERS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
36
A gateway is a physical or geometric landmark that indicates a change in environment
from a higher speed arterial or collector road to a lower speed residential
neighborhood. They often place a higher emphasis on aesthetics and are frequently
used to identify neighborhood and commercial areas within a larger urban setting.
Gateways may be a combination of street narrowing, medians, signing, archways,
roundabouts, or other identifiable feature.
Gateways should send a clear message to motorists that they have reached a specific
place and must reduce speeds. This can help achieve the goal of meeting
expectations and preparing motorists for a different driving environment. Gateways
are only an Introduction and slower speeds are not likely to be maintained unless the
entire area has been redesigned or other traffic-calming features are used.
Purpose
• Create an expectation for motorists to drive more slowly and watch for pedestrians
when entering a commercial, business, or residential district from a higher speed
roadway.
• Create a unique image for an area.
Consideration
• Traffic-slowing effects will depend upon the device chosen and the overall traffic-
calming plan for the area.
• May reduce on-street parking.
Estimate Cost
Varies widely depending on the measures chosen.
Residential Neighbortiood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
37
t
NO SCALE
FIGURE 7,8.A
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
38
FIGURE 7.8.B
NO SCALE
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
39
Increased Police Enforcement involves the effective use of public safety / police
personnel to encourage reduced speeds in residential areas. The enforcement
procedure usually involves the use of radar to identify speeders and subsequen
ticketing o speed violators. Studies have shown that enforcement operations resuinn
appreciable speed reductions. However, speeds are usually reduced only a ong as
the enforcement is maintained. The number of accidents Is generally reduced and
overall safety is improved while speeds are reduced. May have signiM im^^^^
sustained enforcement is presented. signiricanr impact if
Purpose
Reduce speeds and improve traffic safety.
Consideration
impacts of enforcement can have a longer lasting effect when enforcement is
repetitive on a non-routine basis. Budget and manpower play a large role in the ability
to even consider increased enforcement.
Estimate Cost
Varies depending on the manpower.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
40
Mini-roundabouts are raised circular islands constructed in the center of a residential
street intersection (generally not intended for use where one or both streets are arterial
streets). They reduce vehicle speeds by forcing motorists to maneuver around them.
Motorists entering the mini-roundabout are directed to the right, such that all motorists
inside the mini-roundabout travel in a counter-clockwise manner.
Mini-roundabouts are commonly landscaped (bushes, flowers, or grass). In locations
where landscaping is not feasible, traffic circles can be enhanced through specific
pavement materials.
Mini-roundabouts can improve the beautification aesthetics and acts as a traffic-
calming device. They can take the place of a two-way or four-way stop sign.
Purpose
• Reduce vehicle speeds at the intersection.
• Manage traffic at intersections where volumes do not warrant a stop sign.
• Reduce crash problems at the intersection of two local streets.
Consideration
• Mini-roundabout landscaping should not impede the sight distance.
• Treat a series of intersections along a local street as part of a neighborhood traffic
improvement program.
• On-street parking may be reduced.
Estimate Cost
The cost is approximately $8,000 to $30,000. Landscaping and/or drainage may add to
this cost estimate.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
41
r?
FIGURE 7.10.A
NO SCALE
MINI-ROUNDABOUT
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
42 —
J)
Pavement markings are a low cost use of painted lane mari<lngs, which attempt to
change the pattem of driver behavior. This concept utilizes the painted lane line to
develop a parking reservoir and/or bike lane, which creates the impression of a
narrowed travelway, even if parked vehicles are not present-
Purpose
To create the impression of a narrow travel lane, causing the driver to reduce their
speed. Studies have shown that pained edgelines reduce speeds by 1 mph to 3 mph.
Consideration
• Edgelines delineate on-sti'eet paricing areas, which may improve safety conditions.
• Use of edgelines may denote an arterial street.
Estimate Cost
The cost is approximately $2 to $3 per linear foot.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September ;^05
43
tr
FIGURE 7.11.A
NO SCALE
PAVEMENT MARKINGS - EDGELINES
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFHC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
44
Paving materials are important to the function and look of a street. Occasionally,
paving materials in and of themselves act as a traffic-calming device (e.g., when the
street is paved in brick or cobblestone). However, some of these materials may be noisy
and unfriendly to bicyclists, pedestrians, or wheelchairs.
Concrete is the preferred walking surface. A different look can be achieved by using
stamped concrete or concrete pavers, which ore available in a variety of colors and
shapes; however, jointed surfaces may induce vibration, which can be painful to some
pedestrians.
Colored paving can often enhance the function of portions of the roadway, such as a
colored bicycle lane. This can create the perception of street narrowing, in addition to
enhancing the travel facility for bicyclists.
Purpose
• Send a visual cue about the function of a street.
• Create an aesthetic enhancement of a street.
• Delineate separate space for pedestrians or bicyclists.
Consideration
• The pedestrian walkway material should be firm, planar, and slip-resistant.
• Uneven surfaces, such as cobblestones and brick, should not be used in the primary
pedestrian or bicycle travel paths.
• Design and maintenance must ensure crosswalk visibility over time,
• Using materials such as bricks and cobblestones may increase the cost of
construction and maintenance.
Estimate Cost
Variable: materials requiring hand labor (cobblestones or pavers) have a higher cost.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
45
FIGURE 7.12.A
NO SCALE
PAVING MATERIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, DANA POINT
46
Raised crosswalks are Speed Tables outfitted with crosswalk markings and signage to
channelize pedestiian crossings, providing pedestrians with a level street crossing. Also,
by raising the level of the crossing, pedestrians are more visible to approaching
motorists.
Raised crosswalks are good for locations where pedestrian crossings occur at
haphazard locations and vehicle speeds are excessive.
Purpose
• May reduce vehicle speeds.
• Enhance the pedestiian environment at the crossings-
Consideration
• Raised Crosswalks improve safety for both pedestrians and vehicles.
• They may be effective in reducing speeds.
• Textured materials, if used, can be expensive.
• Their impacts on drainage needs to be considered.
• They may increase noise and air pollution.
Estimate Cost
The cost for each raised crosswalk is approximately $4,000,
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
47
A raised intersection is essentially a speed hump for the entire intersection. Construction
involves providing ramps on each vehicle approach, which elevates the entire
intersection to the level of the sidewalk. They can be built with a variety of materials,
including asphalt, concrete, stamped concrete, or pavers. The crosswalks on eacti
approach are also elevated as part of the treatment to enable pedestrians to cross the
road at the same level as the sidewalk, eliminating the need for curb ramps. Use
detectable warnings to mark the boundary between the sidewalk and the street.
Purpose
• Reduce vehicle speeds.
• Enhance the pedestrian environment at the crossings.
Consideration
• Don't use if on a sharp curve or if the street is on a steep grade.
• Speed humps and raised crosswalks and intersections can be an urban design
element through the use of special paving materials.
• Detectable warning strips at edges enable pedestrians with vision impairments to
detect the crossing.
• Care must be taken to manage drainage.
Estimate Cost
Raised crosswalks are approximately $6,000 to $25,000, depending on drainage
conditions and material used.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
48
A rumble strip is a patterned section of street created with treated pavement, raised
pavement markers or ground groves in the pavement surface. Normal application is to
call attention to other traffic control devices such as "curve" or speed limit signs.
Purpose
• To be used as a warning device.
Consideration
Does not typically decrease speed or traffic volume. It causes extreme noise in
residential environments. Rumble strips are not normally used as a stand-alone device-
Estimate Cost
Approximately $500 per installation.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Manogement Plan, Dana Point
September 2005
49
NO SCALE
FIGURE 7.15-A
RUMBLE STRIP
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
50
Speed humps, similar to raised crosswalks and raised intersections are paved (usually
asphalt) and approximately 3 to 4 inches high at their center, and extend the full width
of the street with height tapering near the drain gutter to allow unimpeded bicycle
travel. Speed humps should not be confused with the speed "bump" that is often
found in parking lots. There are several designs for speed humps. The traditional 12-foot
hump has a design speed of 15 to 22 mph.
Purpose
• Reduce vehicle speeds. Raised measures tend to have the most predictable speed
reduction impacts.
• Enhance the pedestrian environment at pedestrian crossings.
Consideration
• Do not use if on a sharp cur^e or on vertical grades greater than 6.0%.
• If the street is a bus route or primary emergency route, the design must be
coordinated with operators. Usually, some devices are acceptable if used prudently
— one device may be appropriate and may serve the primary need (e.g., if there is
a particular location along a street that is most in need of slowing traffic and
improving pedestrian conditions).
• Noise may increase.
• May create drainage problems on some streets.
Estimate Cost
The cost for each speed hump is approximately $4,000.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Dona Point
September 2005
51
HUMP
HUMP
FIGURE 7.17.A
NO SCALE
SPEED HUMPS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
52
Speed Watch Programs use people in the community who are trained with the use of a
radar gun. In this program, often times it takes two people, one person manning the
radar gun and the other person taking note of the speeder observed. Speeders are
sent letters by the Traffic or Police Department pointing out the inconsistent speeds
relative to standards adopted by their friends and neighbors. In many cases, the
speeders turn out to be local residents. When neighborhood residents run the unit, they
learn first hand abut the problem or lack thereof. This technique could be a part of a
low cost initial phase attempt to slow speeders. This has been found to drastically
reduce speeds in small neighboriioods.
Purpose
Reduce speeds and create a neighborhood atmosphere.
Consideration
Since people that live in the community are working the machines, they get a first hand
look at who is a multiple offender. This can lead to conflict between citizens and even
vigiiantism.
Estimate Cost
The cost for a radar speed gun is approximately $500 to $1,0(X).
Residential Neighborhood Traflic Management Plan. Dana Point
September 2005
53
street Closure is accomplished by closing a street at either end or at the mid-block,
which causes a cul-de-sac to be formed. This causes traffic on the street to be from
local use only. The closures can have a great affect on the community since the
closure can be surrounded by plant life to help the aesthetic beauty of the
neighborhood. The impact of traffic volume can be drastic, reducing traffic flow to
that which is generated by the land use on the abutting properties.
Purpose
To reduce traffic volumes and potentially traffic speeds. This also improves the
aesthetical look of the street.
Consideration
A "dead-end" sign should be placed at the entrance to the street. In order to keep
unknowing drivers out.
Estimate Cost
Will vary depending on the project, but most often in excess of $30,000.
Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Ran, Dana Point
September 2005
54
FIGURE 7.18.A
STREET CLOSURE
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
55
FIGURE 7.18,B
STREET CLOSURE (BACK TO BACK)
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. DANA POINT
56
Appendix B
Residential Street Standards & Neighborhood Traffic Control:
A Survey of Cities' Practices and Public Officials' Attitudes
Residential Street Standards & Neighborhood Traffic Control:
A Survey of Cities' Practices and Public Officials' Attitudes
Eran Ben-Joseph
Institute of Urban and Regional Planning
University of California at Berkeley
Abstract
The failure of the local street system to provide livability and safety in the residential environment
can be seen in the application of neighborhood traffic management programs by local authorities
to mitigate traffic problems. In order to further identify the extent of the conflict associated with
"livability" and geometrical design of residential street, the following issues are examined: (1)
Existing and proposed residential streets standards and regulations as practiced by various cities
and their evaluation by public and city officials. (2) Traffic problems associated with residential
streets and their mitigation through traffic management and control programs. Data are collected
from Public Works and Traffic Engineering Departments of 56 Californian cities and 19 cities
nation-wide. The findings show that most cities are still adhering to published street standards as
recommended by different professional and federal organizations. Although some city officials
see the need to amend certain aspects of their regulations and create a more flexible framework
for street design, most of them believe that the current practice is satisfactory. Yet, the extant of
residents' complaints about traffic problems on their streets might indicate an inconsistency
between professional practice, as manifested in street design, and its actual performance as
experienced by the residents. This can also be seen in the application of traffic control devices
used by local authorities to mitigate these problems of which the most common are the
installation of speed humps and 4-way stop signs. According to the cities' reports these
techniques, as well as traffic diverters have the most effective results.
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported in part by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the
University of California at Berkeley, and the University of California Transportation Center. 1 am
also grateful for the guidance of Professor Michael Southworth at the department of City and
Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture at the University of California at Berkeley.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of the street as a physical and social part of the living environment, as a place
simultaneously used for vehicular movement, social contacts and civic activities, has long been
argued by many authors such as Kevin Lynch, Jane Jacobs and J.B. Jackson. Local residential
streets in particular are central to the feeling of "community" and "belonging" within a
neighborhood.
Appleyard (1981) hypothesized that when traffic volumes increase beyond what is
considered normal by local residents, or vehicle speeds increase because of street design, social
street activities are greatly reduced, and the feeling of well being in the affected neighborhood is
threatened. In order to protect livability as well as to provide for efficient movement of motor
vehicles streets are given functional classifications. As such The Institute of Transportation
Engineers report entitled, Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets, establishes the
following criteria in the design of local street systems:
Safety- for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Efficiency of Service- for all users.
Livability or Amenities- especially as affected by traffic elements in the circulation
system.
Economy- of land use, construction, and maintenance
It further elaborates and provides the following principles:
Adequate vehicular and pedestrian access should be provided to all parcels.
Streets should be designed to minimize through traffic.
Elements in the local circulation system should not have to rely on extensive traffic
regulations in order to function efficiently and safely.
Planning and construction of residential streets should clearly indicate their local
function.
The local street should be designed for a relatively uniform low volume of traffic.
Local streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds.
Pedestrian-vehicular conflict points should be minimized.
Minimum amount of space should be devoted to street use.
There should be a minimum number of intersections.
(ITE, 1984)
Although, ITE recommended criteria refer to issues of livability and safety on residential streets,
many cities are finding themselves under pressure to further address these issues through the
reduction of speed and volume of traffic on residential streets. While traffic volume is often the
result of a pooriy planned street system, safety and excessive speed are related to the street's
geometrical design. The practice of constructing relatively wide cross sections in residential
streets where there is little traffic (less than 1000 trips per day), permits and encourages high
vehicle speeds. High speeds are also encouraged by pavement width, smoothness, flat curves
and good sight distance called for in street standards^ This relationship between design speed
and sight distance, curve radius, and width have been established to provide motorized efficiency
which is often incompatible with the essence of residential livability.
Published geometrical street standards do not always adhere to the stated principles for
residential street systems. The failure of existing local street systems, and the street's physical
design, to provide livability and safety associated with the residential environment, can be seen in
the application of traffic management strategies and control devices used by local authorities to
mitigate these problems. These management programs are generally assigned to the following
sequential categories:
1. Establishing, revising, and enforcing laws and ordinances pertaining to traffic regulations
such as: speed limits, intersection control and parking regulations.
2. Installing traffic control devices that comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices such as: regulatory and warning signs, markings, traffic signals and traffic islands.
3. Installing physical design features that manage the movement and reduce the speed of
vehicles: speed humps, pavement narrowing, shift in pavement, traffic circles and traffic
diverters.
Study Objectives
Against this background of issues, a detailed study of existing and proposed regulations, showing
their use and results as found in many cities, would be of particular value to those enacting
legislation and procedures. It would sen/e as a compilation of what is being practiced in terms of
street standards and traffic management at the neighborhood scale, and as an aid to those
studying and drafting subdivision regulations. To further identify the extent of the conflict
associated with "livability" and geometrical design of residential streets, the following study
objectives are set:
^ Farouki (1976) and Moore (1969) show that the mean free speed of cars in suburban roads
increases linearly with the roadway width. This linear relationship is particularly apparent
between the width of 17 to 37 feet.
Bjorneboe (1990) shows that when the road is narrowed down to 11 feet 55% of the traffic
will drive slower than 18 mi/hour He further shows that minimum road radius is related to the
square of velocity. Thus by reducing the horizontal curvature to 50 feet, speed will be at about 13
miles/hour while maintaining access to all vehicles.
To compile data on existing and proposed residentiai street standards and regulations as
practiced by various cities.
To inquire about the extent to which authorities have made adaptations to traditional
residential streets, what form these adaptations have taken, and their resulting
performance.
To evaluate residential street performance as perceived by public and city officials.
To inquire about traffic problems associated with residential streets, their causes, and
resulting mitigation programs.
To research current practices in neighborhood traffic management and control and to
receive direct input on the success or failure of each traffic control measures.
Procedure
A. Methods:
Data were collected using the following methods:
Review of Literature. (See References Section)
Interviews with selected city officials.
Questionnaire sent to city officials.
The sun/ey focuses on public officials' evaluations and perceptions of suburban street
performance. It seeks to find out the process by which residential street standards are initiated,
adopted and applied. It also inquires about the extent to which authorities have made
adaptations to traditional residential streets, and what form these adaptations have taken.
Main issues covered in the questionnaire are:
Street standards used, their adequacy and origin.
Perception of street safety and performance problems.
Neighborhood traffic management schemes , reasons for implementation, and their
initiation process.
B. Sampling Method:
The sun/ey was conducted through a mail distribution of a written questionnaire (see Appendix
A). The questionnaire, containing a stamped return envelope, was sent to the head of the Public
Works Department (or Transportation Department) of 150 cities (100 in Califomia and 50 nation-
wide). From the distribution of questionnaires in the Spring and Summer of 1994, 75 were filled
out and returned (56 from California and 19 from the other states). This return accounted for a
50 percent response of the possible sample. (For a list of participating cities and contact
addresses see Appendix B).
SURVEY RESULTS
Residential Street Standards- their Use, Adequacy and Ongin
The survey asked city officials to indicate the minimum standards for local (access) residential
streets in their jurisdiction. In addition to indicating the minimum dimension on a diagrammatic
cross section, (Figure 1), respondents were also asked to rate their overall satisfaction with
specific standards and indicate their appropriateness.
^JR!GHT_ OF WAY
()
•BORDER AREA-
SIDEWALK-
WALK OFFSET FROM RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMIT
Figure 1. Typical Cross Section
Minimum Standards For Residential Streets
Right of Way Width Right-of-way width is usually required to contain the elements of a
street. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Guidelines state that a ROW width must have
sufficient width to contain the following elements:
Pavement and/or curbing.
Sidewalks where required.
Street utilities customarily installed in border areas such as: streetlights, traffic signs,
street trees, utility tines (overhead and underground).
A moderate amount of cross-section grading, including shoulders where utilized.
In extreme northern climates, additional area may be required for extensive retention
of snow plowed from roadway. (ITE 1984, 5)
The sun/ey results indicate that the prevalent right-of-way width for a residential subdivision
street is 50 feet. While only 39 percent of the surveyed cities use 50 feet as their ROW, 77
percent of the cities are requiring ROW dimensions between 50 to 60 feet. This width (50 to 60
feet) is in accord with the specification set by the Institute of Transportation Engineers since
1967. (Figure 2.)
Figure 2. Minimum Standards for Residential Streets'
Right- Of-Way
o
rr
0% 10% 20% 30%
Percent of Respondents
40% 50%
One city (Danville, CA) is using 38 feet as a ROW standard white six other cities (Fresno, CA ;
Lakwood, CO ; Novate, CA ; Pleasanton, CA ; Tuscon, AZ ; Vallejo, CA) are using 40 feet as their
required standard. These are the smallest ROW widths for residential streets recorded by the
survey. (Figure 3)
TD C o cx
OC
£ zs
Z
Figure 3. Minimum Standards for Residential Streets'
Right- Of-Way
40' 42' 44' 46' 48' 49' 50' 52" 54' 56' 60'
ROW
Roadway Width (Curb to Curb) Roadway width for residential streets is currently the
most debatable segment of street design requirements. ITE guidelines provide the following
criteria for pavement width: "A minimum pavement width must allow safe passage of moving
traffic in each direction, exclusive of other interferences, such as conventional curb parking. Curb
parking will occur occasionally within alt residential subdivisions. The rate of occurrence will be a
function of density, off-street parking code requirements, and local ordinances. In very low-
density developments, large lots with two-car garages and circular driveways are commonplace.
However, vehicle breakdown and occasional overflow parking indicates that even in low-density
areas, provisions should be made for the occasional standing vehicle. This can be done by
means of a shoulder on one or both sides of the street. Such shoulder development requires that
curbs either be omitted or be ofthe mountable or roll-type, when a narrow- such as 22 foot (7-m)
- road is used. ... An alternative approach for low density development is the provision of a
27-foot (8-m) curbed street. Parking could be prohibited on one side of the street under certain
conditions. This is based upon the assumption that the community has required adequate off-
street parking at each dwelling unit." (ITE 1984, 5-6)
Although the Institute guidelines mention the possibility of using a narrow pavement width
with limited on street parking, only 29 percent of the surveyed cities are using these
specifications. The majority of the cities (55%) are using 36 to 40 foot pavement as their
minimum standard. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Minimum Standards for Residential Streets'
Roadway
<v TJ £ O CL Vl Oil
CE
01
jQ £
3
20' 24' 25' 26' 27' 28' 30' 31' 32' 34' 36' 38' 40'
Roadway (pavement) Width
When asked to denote their opinion on the most appropriate roadway width (curb to curb) for
residential streets, 70 percent of the respondents indicate widths between 36 to 40 feet. The
majority of the respondents (44 percent) indicate a 36 foot roadway as the most desirable, with
40 and 32 foot width as second and third choice respectively. (Figure 5)
Figure 5. The Most Appropriate Width (curb to curb) for Residential
Streets as Envisioned by Respondents
i3 c
C O a.
DC
jQ
£
3
z
24' 26' 29' 30' 32' 34" 36' 38' 40'
The sun/ey indicates that a roadway width of 36 feet is most widely used, as well as deemed to
be the most appropriate dimension. Most of the respondents explain this dimension as the best
in allowing free traffic passage as well as on street parking. This width is indicated to be
composed of two 10 foot traffic lanes and two 8 foot parking lanes.
General comments supporting a 36 foot width include:
Two -10' wide driving lanes plus two - 8' parking lanes. (Antioch, Claremont, Houston,
San Clemente)
36' width allows for parking and two-11' lanes. (San-Francisco)
With on-street parking in a typical subdivision, 36' is a reasonable minimum. (Livermore)
A 36' width accommodates parking on both sides and one lane in each direction without
conflict. (Los Angeles)
Keeps speed down and allows for adequate on-street parking. (Pittsburg)
36' width allows safe travel for two-way traffic, even if cars are parked on each side of the
street. (Riverside)
Other comments:
40 foot roadway
Two -12' through lanes and two - 8' parking/bike lanes. (Chico)
Allows adequate room for parking on both sides of the street. ( El Cajon )
Two - 8' parking spaces and 2- 12' through lanes. (Foster City, Irvine, Laguna Niguel,
San Bernadino)
38 foof roadway
Two -11' travel lanes, two -8' parking lanes. (Gilroy, Miami, FL))
34 foot roadway
Fire department thinks 34' is too narrow, we use 34' on cul-de-sacs and short
residential streets. (Lodi)
32 foot roadway
This width allows for sporadic parking and tends to reduce speeds. (Poway)
Used for residential areas with 11-20 dwelling units (Walnut Creek)
30 foot roadway
Provides parking on both sides and requires traffic to "give and go". (Cupertino)
29 foot roadway
Used in Neo-Traditional Developments. (Modesto)
20 foot roadway
20' width with limited access and no parking restrictions, and very low ADTs. If higher
ADTs, 20' with no parking. (Boulder, CO)
Others
"As in anything, there are pros and cons to any street width. Planners, environmental
types and builders try to minimize street width (all for their own reasons). As we try to
increase densities to make more efficient use of land, ( a generally negative impact on
the degree of liability), we create an even denser street scene with narrower streets. It
would seem that we could use a combination of wide street right-of-ways and narrow
minor streets to maximize densities while providing some openness and an inviting area
for both vehicles and pedestrians. Unfortunately, any proposal must be evaluated from
an economic feasibility standpoint which tends to extremely limit any creativity." (Clayton)
"The narrower the streets the better, but liability is an important issue." (Livermore)
"Residential streets should be designed by keeping the following key criteria in mind:
(1) Traffic volumes should be kept below 1000 ADT, (2) Speeds should be controlled at
or near 25 mph." (Modesto)
"The issue of street design in urban areas has become very site and community specific.
Hence, Novate has adopted rural street standards. These provide a tool which staff uses
in workshop meetings with a neighborhood in order to arrive at street improvement
design for a particular street." (Novate)
Sidewalk Width & Location One of the prevalent notions is that suburban subdivision
streets usually lack sidewalks. Guidelines usually allow for sidewalk requirements to be waived
when it is determined that a specific street will have minimal pedestrian traffic. ITE guidelines
further point out that "Sidewalks should ordinarily be provided along streets used for pedestrian
access to schools, parks, shopping areas, and transit stops." It continues to state that "In the
very low-density subdivisions, walking distance to regular elementary schools is often excessive.
In communities where all such travel is by way of school buses, there will be less need for
sidewalk constructions as a standard policy." (ITE 1984,7)
The assumption that most new subdivision regulations do not require sidewalks is not
supported by the survey tindings. Only one city (Bakerstield, CA) does not require sidewalks on
its residential streets. (Figure 6) Fifty-three cities, (84%), require sidewalks in ail cases, and only
nine cities allow for special provisions. Furthermore, almost all the cities that require sidewalks
(93%)) require their construction both sides ofthe street. (Figure 7)
Figure 6. Sidewalk Requirements on Residential Streets- A
Not required | 2%
Sometimes ^^^H14%
Sidewalks required
40% 60%
Percent of Respondents
100%
Figure 7. Sidewalk Requirements on Residential Streets - B
Sidewalks Required
on one side
Required on both
sides
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percent of Respondents
100%
ITE guidelines call for sidewalks to be a minimum width of 5 feet. Indeed the majority of the
surveyed cities (62%)) are prescribing sidewalk widths between 5 and 7 feet (with 51 %> using the
5 foot dimension). (Figure 8)
10
Figure 8. Minimum Standards for Sidewalks on
Residential Streets
35
•o
o
CL Vl <v cc
Ol
3
4' 4.5' 5' 5.5' 6' 7'
Sidewalks
Sidewalk Distance from Curb Face (Planting Strip) The use of a planting strip between
roadway and sidewalk has been a common practice in suburban subdivisions. Introduced by
Frederick Law Olmsted in 1868 in his design for Riverside, IL. as a visual and physical barrier
between cars and pedestrians, it was commonly specified by governmental agencies until the
1960s (Southworth, Ben-Joseph, 1995). ITE guidelines still recommend the utilization of a
minimum 5- foot area between the roadway edge and the sidewalks. The guidelines sites the
following advantages of a border strip:
Children walking and playing side-by-side have increased safety from street traffic.
Conflicts between the pedestrian and garbage or trash cans awaiting pickup at the
curb is eliminated by using a border area for such temporary storage.
The warped area necessary for a proper driveway gradient is minimized by having a
major portion of this gradient fall within the border area.
Danger of collision by runoff vehicles is minimized by placement of the walk at a
maximum practical distance from the curb, and with further separation by tree planting.
Conflict with storage of snow plowed off the roadway is minimized.
Pedestrians are less likely to be "splashed" by passing vehicles. (ITE 1984, 7)
Even though strong recommendations are made to incorporate a border area, the survey
indicates that many cities are moving away from this practice. Thirty-six cities (54%) do not
require a planting strip and allow for the sidewalk to be next to the curb. Within those cities that
require a border area, a 4 to 5 foot width is the most common. (Figure 9)
11
Figure 9. Minimum Standards for Border (Planting Strip) Between Sidewalk
& Roadway
<u -o sz o CL
Vl
01 QC
1)
Si
£
3
0'
N/R
0.5' 3' 3.5' 4' 4.5' 5' 5.5'
Border Width
6' 6.5' 7' 8' 9' 14'
Building Setbacks Building setbacks usually are not an integral part of street standards'
manuals and guidelines. Yet they influence the appearance of the streets and impact the
perception of its width. European studies suggest that a driver's perception of the appropriate
driving speed is influenced by the relationship between the width of the street and the height of
vertical elements. (Devon 1991) Therefor lower speeds are usually achieved when the height of
vertical elements, (such as buildings or trees), along the street are greater than the width of the
street. In typical suburban subdivisions, where building heights usually do not exceed 30 feet
and the ROW width is typically 50 feet, setbacks increase optical width.
According to the survey, a 20-foot setback from ROW is the most commonly used standard.
This dimension, which is derived from a typical length of car, allows for unobstructed parking on
the resident's driveway. (Figure 10)
12
Figure 10. Minimum Standards for Building
Setbacks
s: o a.
Vl Ol
OC
<u
3
Corner Radii Corner radii at intersections are typically designed to facilitate easy vehicular
turning. The use of a targe corner radius does not only allow vehicles to turn the corner fast, but
also reduces the pedestrian's right-of-way. Radius selection is often determined according to
requirements set by service and emergency agencies, and is usually in excess of 20 feet.
European practices show that a reduction in speed while of up to 50 percent can be achieved
when a small corner radius is used. Furthermore, the small curb radius ensures a short crossing
distance by pedestrians and reduces the danger of vehicles cutting across slower cyclists.
White European guidelines recommend a reduction of corner radii for local residential streets
of up to a minimum of 10 feet, most of the surveyed U.S. cities mandate double that dimension.
(Devon 1991, 46, Klau 1992, 52-53) Sixty-three percent ofthe surveyed U.S. cities use a 20 to
25 foot minimum corner radius, 10% use a 30 feet radius and only one city (Santa Barbara, CA)
allows a 10 foot radius. (Figure 11)
13
Figure 11. Minimum Corner Radius at Residential Streets' Intersections
10 15 16' 20' 24' 25' 27'
Minimum Radius
28' 30' 31' standard
Street Trees The use of street trees for ecological and visual benefits are well understood
and documented. Street trees also contribute to the reduction of physical and optical width of the
street right-of-way. This visual reduction often results in lower driving speeds as noted in the
"Building Setbacks" section.
The prevailing notion that most new subdivision streets are bare and lack street trees is not
supported by the survey findings. Forty-three cities (60%) require street trees in ail cases, in
addition, fifteen other cities allow for special provisions. (Figure 12)
Figure 12. Requirement for Street Trees
Not required
Sometimes
Street trees required
20 30 40 50
Number of Respondents
The most common requirement for minimum street tree spacing, (88% of the cases), is one tree
per lot. Considering typical subdivision lot width, this translates to a 35 to 45-foot spacing.
(Figure 13)
14
Figure 13. Minimum Spacing Requirement for Street Trees
0% 10% 20% 30%
Percent of Respondents
40% 50%
Maximum Cul-de-Sac Length Typically cul-de-sac length is a function of the number of
dwelling units it serves. As the number of units exclusively served by a single roadway
increases, the potential hazard for temporary blockage also increases. These potential
blockages are viewed as critical due to their effect on emergency access. ITE recommends that
the maximum length of a cul-de-sac should be 1000 feet, and serve a maximum of 20 dwellings.
The survey results indicate a lower figure. Most cities (83%)) allow a maximum length of 500
to 600 feet. With a typical tot width of 45 feet, these cut-de-sac lengths allow for 12 to 14
dwelling units. (Figure 14)
Figure 14. Maximum Length Allowed for a Cul-de-Sac
SZ
o
OL Vl
Ol
CE
0^
E
3
200' 250' 300' 350' 400' 450' 500' 600' 700' 750' 800' 1000' 1500' No No
Maxi Stan
mum dard
Maximum Length
Minimum Cul-de-Sac Radius Dimensions for right-of-way radii at the end of a cul-de-sac
are influenced by the need to accommodate the movement of service trucks and fire equipment.
15
According to the survey most cities (52%)) use a roadway radius between 35 to 40 feet. These
dimensions are usually sufficient for the turning of a straight body truck and a small tire
apparatus. It is interesting to note that unlike common assumptions, and contrary to the
recommendations by ITE guidelines, a 50-foot radius is not commonly used. (Fifty foot radius is
the minimum required for a targe fire apparatus, such as hook and ladder, to make a practical
turn.) (Figure 15)
Figure 15. Minimum Radius Required at a Circular End of a Cul-de-Sac
24' 25' 30' 32' 33' 35' 36' 37' 38' 39' 40' 42' 43' 45' 48' 49' 50' Standard
Minimum Radius
Alleys in Residential Area Often considered a waste of space and an additional
maintenance burden in low density developments, alleys have been largely eliminated from
subdivision design in the last fifty years. ITE guidelines specify that a properly designed alley
should have a minimum width of 20 feet with 15 to 20-foot radii at street intersections. However,
it continues to stress that "certain disadvantages, such as additional pavement to be constructed
and maintained, the area removed from the tax rolls, the added mileage of police patrol, and
street lighting needs, all suggest alternate solutions to current design problems." (ITE 1984,9)
Yet, alleys have gained some renewed popularity with advocates of Neo-traditional and
Transit Oriented Development. Proponent's justitication for the use of alleys state that: "In areas
where walking is to be encouraged, streets lined with garages are undesirable. Alleys provide an
opportunity to put the garage to the rear allowing the more 'social' aspect of the home to front the
street. Streets lined with porches, entries and living spaces are safer because of natural
surveillance." (San-Diego, City of, 1992, Guideline 8F) The survey findings indicate that alleys
are still restricted as a design feature in most residential subdivisions. Among the 25 cities that
16
allow alley construction, seventy-three percent adhere to ITE's 20-foot minimum alley width.
(Figure 16;17)
Figure 16. Alleys in Residential Areas
allowed
not allowed 46 (65%)
—I 1-
20 30 40 50
Number of Respondents
60 70
Figure 17. Minimum Requirements for Alley
Width
15-r
Vl 01
10--
16' 20' 24'
Width
Private Streets A private road or driveway, as defined by the Uniform Vehicle Code, is an
"every way or place in private ownership and used for vehicular travel by the owner and those
having express or implied permission from the owner, but not by other persons." (1956, Sec. 1-
148) In many contemporary subdivisions developers try to utilize the private street option in
order to minimize the required geometric design standards and cut down on their costs. As the
streets are maintained by the homeowners association the city is typically exculpated from full
liability. As such, the city often permits their construction along less rigid standards that results in
narrower roadways and smaller building setbacks.
Almost all of the cities surveyed (84%)), allow for different street standard configurations in private
developments. Among the cities that allow for a construction of a narrower roadway, sixty-four
percent require a minimum width of 20 to 25 feet. This width is often stipulated with special
parking requirements, but it still substantially less than the typical 36 foot roadway width of the
public street. (Figure 18; 19)
17
Figure 18. Exceptions for Street Standards in Private Developments
Not allowed
Allowed
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents
Figure 19. Minimum Requirements for Private Streets Width
sz <u •o sz o a.
Vl
<!}
CC
0)
£
3
18' 20' 22' 24' 25' 26' 27' 28' 32' 34' 36'
Curb to Curb
Other provisions for private streets allows for the introduction of different paving materials,
changes in street configurations, and the employment of traffic calming devices. Some of these
provisions are further described in the fotlowing survey comments:
General Comments
No strict requirements, only fire department can require standards relating to safety
issues. (Colorado Springs, CO)
Minor deviations are allowed subject to negotiations with the fire department. (Los
Angeles)
Many complaints on sub-standard width and private roads, for example: no on street
parking allowed, and tack of adequate walkways. (Pleasanton)
According to specific conditions, standards can be somewhat deviated from. (Moraga)
Minimum street standards apply with some exceptions. (Walnut Creek)
Different Widths and Parking Configurations
24' curb to curb, no parking and no sidewalks. One way loops at 20' curb to curb, no on
street parking and no sidewalks. (Danville)
18
25' curb to curb, with no on street parking. Streets not built according to city standards
are not permitted to be convert from private to public status. (Denver, CO)
Rolled curbs are permitted. Sidewalks are not required. (Fresno)
26' curb to curb with no on street parking. (Gilroy)
Minimum 28' without on street parking. (Livermore)
Special paving allowed. (Mill Valley)
Pinch points and planters are allowed. (Pittsburg)
Limited to four dwelling units with no parking on both sides. (San Bernadino)
38' ROW, 28' curb to curb, no on street parking. (Vacavilte)
25' curb to curb, sidewalks can be designed as a path within the development, parking
can be handled off the street. Any proposal would be considered. (Watsonville)
19
Urban Form and Traffic-Suitability of Street Patterns to Residential Subdivisions
City officials were asked to rank the suitability of different road forms and urban forms for
residential subdivisions. On a scale of 0 to 5, 'cul-de-sac street' received the highest average
ranking (4), with 'short block length', 'T intersections', 'limited access street pattern', and
'curvilinear pattern' at a close second. (Figure 20) These attributes conform with the prevailing
principles of subdivision street layout as set forth by most federal and professional agencies in
the last sixty years. (Southworth, Ben-Joseph 1995)
Figure 20. Ranking of Suitability for Residential Subdivisions by Respondents
(Average)
Cul de sac
Block length of less than 500'
3 way (T) Intersections
Limited access pattern
Curvilinear layout
4 way intersections
Collector streets
Block length of more than 500'
Grid pattern
Through streets
0
Least Suitable
Some of the respondents provided the following comments:
Street Pattern
"Most problems occur in subdivision layouts (post 1950) with cun/ilinear streets. The city
has re-adopted grid system layout for all future subdivisions. The city uses an alternating
stop sign pattern in the residential grid to avoid long uncontrolled segments with excellent
success at controlling speeds. Having property spaced collector streets and controlling
non-residential land uses resolves many of the typical problems. We have very few
traffic problems in the pure residential grid areas." (Denver, CO)
"This goes back to initial design philosophy. Correcfing the problems of the old grid
pattern is what this is all about. It would be difficult to over -emphasize the importance of
initial design and (fitting together) of adjacent subdivisions. "(Gilroy)
"T-intersections are safer, but do not lend to a grid patiern. No developers in our area
are currently developing grid neighborhoods. We are saturated with curvilinear design
21
and cut-de-sacs and virtually no through traffic. However, the primary access into these
sub-divisions are where we get 75% of our complaints- speed, safety and children."
(Greensboro, NC)
"For the last 20 years we encouraged circuitous curvilinear street patterns with maximum
length of street within a subdivision of 1,500'." (Fresno)
"Irvine's curvilinear street design for residential streets has prevented many ofthe typical
local street problems with cut-through traffic and high speed." (Irvine)
• "Limiting 4-way intersections improves safety but needs to be balanced with ease of
direct access for transit and bicycles. We try to compromise between the true grid
pattern and the limited access/curvilinear/ cul-de sac design." (Lodi)
"Collector streets should border the subdivision and provide connection from
neighborhood to neighborhood. Dead-end or cut-de-sac streets often place the
connecting street as a through street, white grid patterns distribute trafi'ic toad fairly.
Each situation must be looked at with all factors in mind. Limited access patterns can be
very suitable depending upon adjacent street system." (Oriando, FL)
Accessibility
"Auto access into and through a neighborhood should be limited. Bicycle access should
be maximized." (Chico)
"Public streets should be designed for the safe and efficient movement of vehicular
traffic. Pedestrians should be kept separate on sidewalks, playgrounds and residential
yards. Building planters and other obstructions in roadways may increase hazard and
liability. Streets are safe enough to cross when necessary if children are taught and
disciplined properly. American governments do not have enough authority to dictate
overall land development design to provide that all streets are safe enough to play on."
(Fresno)
"Pedestrian pathways within residential subdivisions and commercial areas to encourage
walking. Provide ample park and recreation facilifies so that children will not have to play
on streets. Building livable residenfial streets so that speed can be reduced through
design." (San Diego)
Sources and Adequacy ofthe Cities' Street Standards
The survey indicates that the majority of the cities are developing their own street guidelines and
standards. When asked to indicate the sources they have used, the option 'Developed by the
city' was checked 45 times out of the 70 responses. Although this might attest to the cities'
legislative sovereignty, in reality most of their indicated standards are not different from
22
previously published guidelines, such as those by ITE and the AASHTO. Furthermore only 30
percent ofthe respondents indicate the possibility of amending their existing city street standards,
and only 18 percent proclaim dissatisfaction with them. (Figure 21)
Figure 21. Sources of the Cities' Residential Street Standards
Urban Land Institute
Local County
Cal Trans
Institute of Transportation
Engineering
American Association of
State Highway Officials
Developed by the city
I 1
20 30 40 50
Number of Times Mentioned
Some ofthe 21 cities that are considering changes to their residential street standards indicate
the following :
Changing minimum roadway to 20 feet. (Boulder, CO)
New general plan will incorporate Neo-traditional concepts. (Chico)
Reviewed and adopted lesser standard of 32' for residential streets in one proposed Neo-
traditional neighborhood. Any actual construction using this standard is a few years off
and limited to that development. (Chula Vista)
Most developments are now PUDs which set their own standards- there is little need for
format standards. (Clayton)
Desire to reestablish setback sidewalk standard with minimum 5' planting and narrow
roadway to 32'. (Denver, CO)
Might consider more narrower standards and eliminating on street parking. (Gilroy)
Looking at village concept with narrower streets. (Livermore)
Developing street standards for Neo-traditional neighborhoods with improvement in travel
speeds (lower speeds) through residential streets. (Modesto)
Adopted a new ordinance creafing "rural street standards." The attempt of these
additions to the Novate Municipal Code is to provide more fiexibility in designing a street
to meet the rural character of portions of our community. (Novate)
Adding traffic calming devices. (Tacoma, West Palm Beach, FL)
23
others express their desire for change in the foltowing comments:
Flexibility
Create more fiexible standards based on use/design criteria. (Boulder, CO, Fresno,
Moraga)
All private streets should meet some city imposed standards. (Colorado Springs, CO)
Street Width
"We generally require too much width- resulting in excessive speed problems. Reduction
of width and perhaps restricting parking to make street more livable is desirable."
(Bakersfield)
Eliminate standards with parking on one side only (difficult to enforce). Provide
sidewalks in residential areas on both sides ofthe street. (Danville)
Would like to require wider ROW for landscaping purposes. (Houston, TX)
Tighter horizontal curvature, narrow width. (Lakewood, CO)
Narrower local streets - to 36 feet and reduced width on cul-de-sacs. (Livermore)
Reduce residential street width. (Poway)
Where targe lots are planned and parking could be accommodated on one side of the
street the width could be reduced to 32'. (Riverside)
Completely eliminate reduced width street standard from our city standards. Cannot
properiy enforce no parking which is required for these types of streets to operate
efficiently and safely. (Vacaville)
Street -Fom)
Less grid network and more discontinuous design, less inviting for cut-through and
speeding. (Austin, TX)
Instead of narrowing roadway width, increase ROW width to 60' to provide desired
planting and setback sidewalk. Original standard until 1940 was 80' ROW with setback
sidewalk and 36' to 40' streets. These are the most aesthetically pleasing
neighborhoods. (Denver, CO)
Not to allow residential street to intersect with arterial or major collectors. (Garden Grove)
Eliminate alternative standards that allow monolithic sidewalks or none at all. Increase
planter strip width to provide for adequate shade tree planfing and separate sidewalk
from roadway for more pleasant streetscape. (Fresno)
Wider parkway area to provide for meandering sidewalks for a more interesting
pedestrian experience. (Los Angeles)
24
Traffic Calming
The city is very interested in pursuing residential traffic control programs, but it has been
very difficult to achieve community consensus and to deal with the significant liability
exposure. (Del-Mar)
Considering European concepts if installed by developers. (Pleasant Hill)
Considering some trafl'ic control measures to discourage non-residential traffic.
(Watsonville)
Residential Street Safety & Traffic Performance
Problems Associated With Residential Streets
Seventy-one percent of the surveyed cities report some form of a major problem on their
residential streets. Twenty-nine percent of the cities report only minor problems, while no city
reports the total absence of problems on their residential streets. The most common major
problem is speed of traffic, (reported by 50 cities), with safety at intersections and children
playing on streets seen as the second most serious problem. (Figure 22;23)
Figure 22. Number of Cities Reporting Problems on Residential
Streets and their Type
Speeding Safety at Children Pedestrian Daytime Safety at Cut-through
intersections playing on crossing parking mid-block traffic
street
Major Problem • Minor Problem • No Problem
25
Figure 23. Major Problems on Residential Streets
Speeding
Children playing on street
Safety at intersections
Pedestrian crossing
Cut-through traffic
Daytime parking
Safety at mid-block
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of Respondents
According to city officials, residents of residential neighborhoods are the most aware of traffic
problems on their streets. The survey indicates that in the majority of cases (75%) it is the local
residents who perceived and complained about traffic related problems. The extent of residents'
dissatisfaction might indicate an inconsistency between professional practice, as manifested in
street design, and its actual performance as experienced by the residents. (Figure 24)
Some of the survey comments reflect these issues:
"City has started a neighborhood safety program; this is a three phase program.
Phase one- "Garden Grove Slow". This phase lets residents call in vehicle license
plates and description for speeders. Letter is sent requiring driver to slow down.
Phase two - after phase one, neighborhood meetings are held and signs, striping,
and markers may be installed. Phase three- if phase one and two are not efl'ective
then phase three looks at installing diverters, street closures, islands, etc." (Garden
Grove)
"In residential areas speeding is perceived to be the number one traffic related safety
problem by residents." (Los Angeles)
"Speeding is often a neighborhood issue and is dealt with increased education and
police enforcement." (Novate)
"One of the most frequent complaints to the Street Transportation Department is
speeding on residential streets. The Neighborhood Speed Watch Program has been
established to address this issue. Neighborhood Speed Watch is a public
awareness program to record vehicle speeds on neighborhood streets and notify the
registered owners of those vehicles observed speeding. It is a program in which
26
concerned citizens can play an active role in helping solve speeding problems in their
neighborhood." (Phoenix, AZ)
Figure 24. Those Who Percive Problems on Residentiai Streets Within the
Cities
Schools
Planning department
Police
Merchants
Public works department
Council
Traffic engineering dept.
Residents
0% 20% 40% 60%
Percent mentioned
80% 100%
Neighborhood Traffic Management Schemes
Protection & Control A conflict arises when motorists choose to exit major streets and use
local streets for passage through an area. When traffic volumes and speed increase beyond
what is considered normal by local residents, the well being and livability in the affected
neighborhood is threatened. These neighborhood traffic problems take various forms, and are
generally characterized by the following concerns:
• Traffic Safety—The occurrence or expectafion that accidents might occur and pedestrians,
children in particular, would get hurt.
Traffic Speed—Excessive speed. The negative reacfion to speed is often a translation of
concern over safety and high noise levels. Vehicles driven at high speeds are seen as a
threat to the peace, safety and quality of life within the neighborhood.
Traffic Volumes— Excessive amounts of traffic are ofl:en a reflection of safety and speed
issues. In most cases, "through" traffic is the source of excessive traffic volumes but it
can also be generated by certain land uses.
Traffic Composition—Certain types of vehicles, especially trucks, buses and
motorcycles, are a causes of annoyance, and are perceived as more hazardous than
automobiles.
27
Reduction of the Pedestrians and Social Activities—when traffic volumes increase
beyond what is considered normal by local residents, or vehicle speeds increase
because of street design, social street activities are greatly reduced, and the feeling of
well being in the affected neighborhood is threatened.
Impacts on and Identity—Excessive traffic problems might lead to increased resident
turnover and neighborhood instability. It might also reduce residents' incentive to
maintain their properties and invest in their outdoor areas.
The concept of protecting neighborhoods by ensuring that local streets serve their residential
function is often supported by local ordinances. For example, the city of Tucson's Ordinance
Number 6593 states in part: "All actions with regard to implementafion of any feature of the
Regional Transportation Plan or land use change proposal adjacent to any feature shall consider
as a primary goal, the protection of existing neighborhood environments, cohesion, and integrity".
(Tucson, City of 1991, 2)
The failure of exisfing local street systems, and physical design to provide the social qualities
associated with the residential street, can be seen in the extensive applicafion of traffic control
devices by local authorities. Seventy-two percent of the 75 surveyed cities have indicated an
initiation of some form of traffic control on their residenfial streets. Furthermore, in almost all the
cases (83%), traffic control devices were initiated because of residents' demand due to safety
(speeding) and through traffic. (Figure 25;26)
Figure 25. Reasons for Implementing Traffic Calming Techniques
Reduce Crime
Beautification
Eliminate Through
Traffic
Improve Road Safety
Residents' Demands
10 20 30
Number of Times Mentioned
28
Figure 26. Project Initiation
Developer
Planning Dept.
Council/Commission
Traffic Eng. Dept.
Public Works Dept.
Residents
10 15 20 25
Number of Times Mentioned
30 35
The most common technique utilized by the cities is the installation of speed humps and 4-way
stop signs. (Figure 27) According to the cities' reports these techniques, as well as diverters and
pavement narrowing have the most effective results. These selected techniques were
considered to be effective in controlling at least one of the two major problem associated with
neighborhood trafflc:
Reduction of speeds in excess ofthe posted speed limit.
Reduction of unwanted traffic volumes (cut-through traffic).
The techniques were also considered to have the potenfial to enhance the neighborhood
environmental quality through the reduction of noise, adverse air quality, beautification
(landscaping), and providing a potential deterrent to crime.
Figure. 27 Utilized Traffic Calming Techniques
Walkways/Landscaping
Street Closure
Shifts in Pavement
Traffic Circles
Pinch Points in Payment
Part Way Stop Signs
Pavment Narrowing
Changes in Pavement Material
Traffic Diverters
4 Way Stop Signs
Speed Bumps or Humps
15 20
Number of Cities
25 30 35
29
Pubiic Involvement The key to successful implementation of a traffic management
program is its acceptance by the local community. This is best achieved through the involvement
of the local community in both the design and implementation stages. Most cities require both an
initiation stage and a participafion stage by the local residents. The city of Omaha, for example,
requires that at least 75% of the property owners living at the segment of the street to be
mitigated sign a petition agreeing to the traffic control device installation. Other cities establish
similar procedures, these are exemplified by the city of Phoenix's requirements for the installation
of speed humps:
1. Homeowners contact the Street Transportation Department to identify the streets
involved and to name a representative willing to serve as the neighborhood contact.
2. Staff checks the street to determine if humps might be beneficial. The evaluation
process includes receiving assurances from the Police and Fire Departments that
humps will not create problems for emergency vehicles. If favorable conditions exist,
the location and number of humps are determined by the city Traffic Investigator This
information is used to calculate cost estimates and to identify the immediate area of
impact. Final hump locations identify where resident signatures, showing approval,
are required.
3. To insure those residents most affected want humps installed, and to insure those
affected in a broader sense are alerted that humps are being considered, two
petitions are needed. One petifion must show at least 75% approval from residents in
the area that the hump is needed. All residents who live within 50 feet of the hump
must approve. The other petition is used to insure that notice is given to other nearby
residents who may be affected, that humps are being considered.
4. If the neighborhood collectively wants the humps and the streets meet the criteria,
residents need to submit the two completed petitions along with a check to cover the
initial and maintenance costs of signing and striping the humps.
5. Should condifions change and the neighborhood no longer wants the humps, a petition
requesting the removal (with at least 51% approval) must be submitted. If approved,
the neighborhood would be responsible for removal costs.
Almost all cities surveyed adhere to participatory procedures. Forty-two cities (88%)) out of the
forty-eight which implemented traffic management plans or controlling devices have consulted
with the local residents. (Figure 28)
Figure 28. Participation Procedures with Residents as Part of Traffic
Managment Program
Not Used
Used
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of Cities
30
Selected Techniques
The following are the most common physical devices used by the cities to control traffic. These
devices and their application were of interest in the analysis of this study for the following
reasons:
Their installation changes the character and physical form of the original street.
With the exception of road humps and trafflc diverters, most of the techniques are
widely and successfully used in Europe but not in the United States.
Most of the devices are not covered in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), do not have established standards, but are generally accepted by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers and U.S. Department of Transportation.
1. Speed Humps
Figure 29. Speed Humps
Typical Application
Used as speed and volume reduction technique.
Description
A road hump is a raised section of pavement approximately 12 feet long which
gradually rises to a maximum height of 4 inches. It is usually built from curb to curb,
or tapered to retain drainage and bicycle passage. The recommended installment of
a 12 foot long hump, slows passing vehicles while reducing any potential vehicle
damage or extreme driver discomfort that may have been encountered with the older
speed bump design. Speed humps are generally not recommended for use on local
streets with a high volume of bicycle traffic. Even though they can be designed to
taper down to street level, near the curb for bicycle traffic, such a design may
encourage automobile drivers to place one set of wheels in the bicycle area to
reduce some of the effects of the hump. The same can be said for designs that
allow drainage runoff to pass through a lowered secfion ofthe hump.
31
The majority of the cities sun/eyed, (58%), are not using speed humps citing liability and the lack
of uniform standards as their major concerns. Forty-two percent of the cifies are using or plan on
using speed humps on their streets. (Figure 30)
Figure 30. Application of Speed Humps
Used
Not Used ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 43
Planned ^^^^^
1
20 30 40 50
Number of Cities
The effects or impacts of using this device as noted by the literature and the surveyed cities are:
Speed and Volume Reduction It is generally accepted that when installed in a series, road
humps will reduce the operating speeds and volumes of passing traffic. A single hump can
reduce the 85 th percentile speed between 14 to 20 mph at the device itself A series of humps
with maximum spacing of 100 feet reportedly have an increased effect on speed reducfion.
Survey Comments-
Effective in reducing traffic speed. (Boulder, CO)
Road bumps when 85% of traffic reaches 35 mph ( Cupertino)
Speed reductions documented, neighbors like them. (Colorado Springs, CO)
• Very effective, reduces 85% from 35 mph to 25 mph. Increases percentile in traffic pace
from 85%) to 100%. (Cupertino)
Safety There has been a great deal of debate as to the impact of speed humps on vehicle
safety. While felt by some to be a hazard and promote erratic driving behavior, a study by a
subcommittee of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee found that with between 150
and 200 million crossings of the state's hundreds of humps, very few claims for damages have
been filed due to the undulations, and less than $20 has been awarded for damages. Fire trucks
and other large vehicles report significant jolts when passing over the undulations. (JHK 1991,
23)
Survey Comments-
Still apprehensive as to their safety. Two reported accidents in 3 years, (Poway)
Not considered safe or effective. (Riverside)
Installation on experimental basis in mid-1980s, practice has since been discontinued.
Found to be a safety hazard to emergency vehicles. (Tampa, FL)
32
Too many problems, operational and safety, associated with these. (Vacaville)
Standards and Guidelines Not covered in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) but accepted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers through its publication:
Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps (1993)
Sun/ey Comments-
Hot, approved traffic control device makes city liable for dangerous conditions. (Antioch)
Concern about liability. (Greensboro, NC)
Not approved traffic control device- Designed for discomfort. (Irvine)
Attempting to establish acceptable dimensions for 25 mph before installing. (Pinole)
Concern about liability. (San Bernadino)
Tested on one street, awaiting state standards. (San Jose)
Community Reaction Mixed reaction has been noted. They are generally disliked by
drivers but liked by local residents.
Survey Comments-
Speed reductions documented, neighbors like them. (Colorado Springs, CO)
Very affective in addressing residents' concerns about speeding, (Dallas, TX)
• As pilot project we integrated 10 humps. Got a positive response. Next phase 18 more
would be installed. (Modesto)
Sun/ey General Comments-
Positive-
Initiafing pilot programs starting September 1994. (Bakersfield)
Good but have limited effect. (Clayton)
Used in townhouse development, private property only (Hercules)
Has implemented successfully a pilot program and is about to implement on a larger
scale. (Los Angeles)
Not used on public streets, but are used on some private streets. (Moraga)
Used extensively in residential areas, parks and schools and by-pass. (Sacramento)
Successfully used. (San Diego)
Speed Bumps disconfinued 8 years ago. Speed Humps now under consideration.
(San Francisco)
Successfully installed. (Tucson, AZ)
Negative-
City made a comprehensive review and elected not to use. (Claremont)
Would preclude snow removal. (Denver, CO)
No longer used as a matter of policy. (Oriando, FL)
Limited use , not effective. (Petaluma)
33
The city has a policy of not installing speed bumps or humps. (Pittsburg)
Others It has been suggested that road humps can be noisy if the distance between them is
not correct. This is due to braking before the hump and speeding up between them which
increases noise and air pollution.
2. Pinch Points in Pavement
Figure 31. Pinch Points in Pavement
Typical Application
Effective in limifing the ability of cars to pass one another through narrow pavement,
and thus reduce speeds.
Description
Constrictions are built in a form of extended planters or sidewalks at intervals along
one side or both sides of the street. Width is influenced by various factors such as:
traffic volume, provision for large vehicles and one or two-way traffic. Pinch points
are usually most effective when combined with other controlling measures such as
speed humps. Provisions for cyclists and drainage may be necessary in some
cases.
This European technique for controlling traffic is not widely used in the United States. Seven of
the surveyed cities indicate actual use of the technique, and ten others show an interest and
possible application in future development. The majority of the cities (52) have not used the
technique. (Figure 32)
34
Figure 32. Application of Pinch Points
Used
Used ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 52 (75%)
Planned
20 30 40 50 60
Number of Cities
The effects or impacts of using this device as noted by the cifies are:
Speed and Volume Reduction Pinch points are mostly used to reduce traffic volumes by
causing delays, but they are less effective as a speed reducing device. In order to maintain a low
speed over a longer stretch, pinch points are usually placed at no less than 100 feet apart.
Sun/ey Comments-
Ineffective at reducing speeds (Colorado Springs, CO ; Cupertino)
Used at two locations with good results. (Garden Grove)
Installed in parking lanes. Minimal improvement. (Pinole)
Safefy Pinch points pose some maintenance problems in street sweeping and obstruction of
drainage. Need sufficient lighting to be seen well in advance.
Standards and Guidelines Not covered in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Sun/ey General Comments-
Planned in Neo-Traditional neighborhoods. (Modesto)
Recently implemented in some new developments. (Petaluma)
May be considered to control speed. (Vacaville)
35
3. Shift in Pavement
Figure 33. Shift in Pavement
Typical Application
Reduction of traffic speed, and the rearrangement of street space, such as parking
and sidewalks.
Description
Speed reduction is achieved by enforced turns and the interrupfion of drivers'
fonward views. Lateral shifts enforce the driver to make at least a 45 degree turn
thus reducing speed. The lateral shift is often created by building alternafing
extensions in the pavement area. Alternate angle parking defined by permanent
planters is another method used to achieve the lateral shift. The shift must be no
less than the width of the traffic lane, in a two-way street, the provision of sufficient
roadway width at the shift might enable drivers to take the middle line, and thus avoid
the speed reducing effect. This problem may be negated by dividing the roadway at
the shift.
This European method of controlling traffic speed is still unpopular in the United States. Only
three of the sun/eyed cites have used this device on their streets. Five cities indicate an interest
and possible application in the future. (Figure 34)
Figure 34. Application of Shift in Pavment
Used
Not Used
Planned
10
61 (89%)
20 30 40
Number of Cities
70
36
The effects or impacts of using this device as noted by literature and the surveyed cifies are:
Speed and Volume Reduction European Studies show substantial decreases in speed at
the shift. Results are compatible with those of speed humps.
Sun/ey Comments-
Ineffective at reducing speeds (Cupertino)
This method reduced speeds and traffic volumes. (Garden Grove)
Safety The design alters the linear character of the street and therefore requires proper
signs and a high standard of street lighting. Planting is desirable to lessen the impact of the
extended islands. The extended non-vehicular space allows for interesting street design and
increased pedestrian utilization of the street.
Standards and Guidelines Not covered in the Manual on Uniform Trafflc Control Devices
(MUTCD)
Survey General Comments-
Have been considered- funding has been a problem as well as public acceptance.
(Danville)
May be considered. (Sacramento)
Not used on public streets, but is used on some private streets. (Moraga)
Would consider. (Livermore)
37
4. Pavement Narrowing (Chokers)
Figure 36. Pavement Narrowing
Typical Application
Speed reduction through extended narrow driving lane at mid-block.
Description
Extended concrete planters are constructed along both sides of the street at the
parking lane. In contrast to pinch points, pavement narrowing is carried out over a
longer stretch of the road. Some application of pavement narrowing can also be
achieved through striping and road marking. Such applicafion have the advantage of
a narrow driving lane with an overrun lane for emergency use. This type of
application has a limited effect on speed reduction if used by itself. European
practices also apply pavement narrowing in the form of an extended middle island,
reducing the street to narrow traffic lanes on both sides, (usually at a maximum width
of 13 ft (4 m) for each lane. (Devon 1991, 50, Klau 1992, 38-39)
As with the application of Pinch Points, and Shift in Pavement, this method is not widely ufilized in
American cities. Fourteen of the surveyed cities use this device on their streets, while eight
cities indicate future plans for implementation. Most of the applications are limited to private
developments, with authorifies reporting satisfactory results. In two of the cases, pavement
narrowing was achieved through striping only. (Figure 36)
38
Figure 36. Application of Pavment Narrowing (Chokers)
Used
Not Used
Planned
51 (70%)
10 50 60 20 30 40
Number of Cities
The effects or impacts of using this device as noted by the cifies are:
Speed and Volume Reduction
Sun/ey Comments-
This has reduced speeds and reduced traffic volumes. (Garden Grove)
Does show some positive results. (Colorado Springs)
Standards and Guidelines Not covered in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD)
Sun/ey General Comments-
Limited to new developments. Partially for aesthefic reasons. (Petaluma)
Limited to private streets and PUD. (San Jose)
39
5. Changes in Pavement Material
Figure 37. Changes in Pavement Material
Typical Application
Defines special areas; useful in reinforcing other speed reduction measures.
Description
Pavement changes which result in a rougher driving area produces a visual and
sensory reinforcement. It is often used to define entrances, crosswalks and
improve street appearance. It may be useful in reinforcing speed reduction
measures and to distinguish between different surface functions.
The use of paving material other than asphalt is usually confined to limited areas within a
development. In all of the 15 cities that use this technique it is applied either in private or
Planned Unit Developments or at special points to accentuate cross-walks. Most cities cite the
cost as the major impedance of further implementation. (Figure 38)
Figure 38. Application of Changes in Pavement Material
Used
Not Used
Planned
53 (74%)
0 10 20 30 40
Number of Cities
The effects or impacts of using this device as noted by the cities are:
Speed and Volume Reduction Minor reduction of speed due to the rough surface. Better
results can be achieved if accompanied by other measures.
40
Standards and Guidelines Not covered in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) but generally accepted if applied according to uniform paving codes and standards.
Sun/ey General Comments-
Positive-
Used at entrences to new subdivision. (Antioch ; Livermore)
Not used on public streets, but is used on some private streets. (Moraga)
Use for crosswalk details. (Colorado Springs, CO)
Good solufion but expensive (Pleasant Hill)
Used at the entrance of private streets. (San Clemente)
Limited to private streets and PUD. (San Jose)
Generally used at intersection/entries points to PUDs. (San Bernadino)
Used to enhanced crosswalk area. (Tucson, AZ)
Negative-
Limited use in intersections- Becomes a maintenance problem. (Irvine)
Expensive alternative. (Modesto)
41
6. Traffic Diverters/ Barriers
Figure 39. Traffic Diverters/ Barriers
Typical Application
Discourage or preclude travel through a neighborhood by breaking up traffic patterns
associated with a grid street system. Should be used as part of a comprehensive
system. Limited use will cause traffic to shift to another street or neighborhood.
Description
A barrier diagonally placed through an intersection converts it into two unconnected
streets. This eliminates direct uninterrupted movement by forcing a turn at the
barrier. Non local traffic must travel a longer distance through the neighborhood,
reducing the local neighborhood streets' potential as through ways. It has an
advantage over cul-de-spacing in that traffic is not "trapped" on the street, making
the installafion more acceptable to local residents and the streets more accessible to
emergency vehicles. Through proper design, landscaping, advance signing, and
pavement markings safety and aesthetic impacts are minimized. The installation of
diverters must be part of a comprehensive neighborhood traffic control system. The
use of a diverter on a single street will divert traffic to other local streets.
This device is frequently utilized by cities that have residential grid neighborhoods. Twenty-eight
percent of the cifies surveyed indicate the use of diverters or are planning to use them.
Application of the device is usually in response to the eliminafion of through traffic requested by
local residents. Recently it has also been use to deter criminal action such as drive-by shootings
and drug related activities in inner city residential neighborhoods, (Oakland, CA, and Miami, FL).
(Figure 40)
42
Figure 40. Application of Traffic Diverters/Barriers
Used
Used ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 47 (72%)
Planned
10 20 30 40 50
Number of Cities
The effects or impacts of using this device as noted by the cifies are:
Speed and Volume Reduction Studies have shown that traffic volumes can be reduced
from 20 to 70 percent when used in conjunction with other diverter systems. Speed reduction is
achieved only at the immediate vicinity of the diverter. However, general reductions in speed
may be noticed if the diverters cause a breakup of typical higher speeds associated with linear
through routes.
Safety Before and after studies of accident rates on streets with diverters show a substantial
reducfion in accidents after the installation of diverters. System wide accident experiences,
however, reportedly remain the same. Some concerns have been expressed over emergency
vehicle access and the aesthetic appearance of the diverters.
Survey Comments-
Results have been mixed, police and fire have problems with access. (Garden Grove)
Problem for emergency vehicles (Hercules)
Standards and Guidelines Not listed in the MUTCD. However, diverters may be considered
as a channeling island, if constructed and marked as such.
Community Reaction While residents of areas where diverter systems are used are
generally in favor of them, residents in other areas are generally opposed. This is exemplified by
a vote in Berkeley, California where areas of the city that had no diverters voted for the removal
of them in other parts ofthe city, while voters in areas with diverters voted to retain them.
Survey Comments-
Successful at some locations, not at others. Usually installed due to neighborhood
demand. (Perception of crime reduction). (Miami, FL)
Sun/ey General Comments-
Positive-
Creates a curvilinear street design over grid pattern. Creates natural diversion and
eliminates cut-through trips. (Irvine)
43
Used as necessary to prohibit left turns onto a major street. (Riverside)
Effective if properiy placed. Good subdivision design and planning avoids this problem.
(Gilroy)
One installation successfully completed. (Tucson, AZ)
Negative-
Trial installation in inner Richmond district was not successful. (San Francisco)
Limited areas, requires major traffic study. (San Jose)
Shared Streets (Woonerf)
fig 4.2: Characterteflc design fiatures of
aWoanaj
Key: 1. no contlnuaus kerb; 3. piivRte access; 3. bench around law ll^tiiu oolunm; 4. use of vailed paving matcrtals; 5. pr1v&& foatmty. a bend In the nukdway; 7. cnnlv paiilnj lot: piaoe to sit or pkjr UK B. bench oi pl»y objoct; 9. on request- plot with plaiUs In front of £B^ade; 10. no conCnumis roadway marldn^ on the pmement; 11. liee; la. destrh marketi paiklns loin: 13. bottkniKk 14. plant tub.
:»a)«.10utEhtgTOtinanb[A»WBI. 1977
Figure 41. Shared Streets (Woonerf)
Descr/pf/or?
The shared street concept (Woonerf) is the prevalent technique for residenfial
neighborhood traffic control in Europe. Its fundamental concept is an antithesis to
the notion of segregating pedestrians and vehicles. It is defined by the elimination of
the traditional division between roadway and sidewalks. One road surface is created
and the maximum vehicle speed is restricted to a walking pace. Thus pedestrians,
children at play, bicyclists, parked cars and moving cars all share the same surface.
Though it seems these uses conflict with each other, the physical design is such that
the pedestrian has primary rights while the driver is the intruder. Various studies and
surveys conducted in the last twenty years indicate a considerable reduction in traffic
speed and accidents. They also show an increase of street's social interaction,
play, and a high degree of satisfaction by the residents.
None of the surveyed cifies have implemented such a concept, and only half (49%)) were aware
of its existence. Yet sixteen of the cities indicated interest and would consider possible
application in the future.
44
Most ofthe cities voiced the following concems in applying the concept to the American setting:
Lack of approved guidelines and standards.
Fear of liability.
Problems with service and emergency access/approval.
Cost and Maintenance
Sun/ey Comments
Negative-
Appears to give no considerafion to traffic volume or safety, nor pedestrian safety.
Ridiculous idea for a public street. (Antioch)
Cleaning could be expensive if done by local agency. (Bakersfield)
America uses larger trucks for local trips. Compounds danger of worst drivers. (Chico)
Liability risk (Claremont)
While residents are concerned about speed (Especially from vehicles outside the
neighborhood), the inconvenience of this type of proposal would bother them more.
(Clayton)
The concept is appealing, but the liability concerns are very significant. (Del Mar)
Appears that it would significantly increase maintenance cost. (Gilroy)
Could be a problem for emergency vehicles. (Hercules)
Looks disjointed with numerous conflict points. (Irvine)
Liability and financing concerns would have to be resolved for this concept to be viable.
(Los Angeles)
Too many potenfial liability issues. Insufficient ROW width on most of our residential
streets. (Miami, FL)
Hinders maintenance and cleaning. Could cause liability problems if accidents occur
(Pittsburg)
Mixed pedestrian and auto areas creates safety problems. (Pleasanton)
Not appropriate. (Riverside)
Too expensive (initial cost and maintenance) liability concern over some elements.
Significant resident opposition to extreme measures. (San Jose)
Expensive, eliminates certain number of parking spaces abutfing residences. (San
Francisco)
Difficult to implement due to emergency service needs. (Tuscon, AZ)
Can work in situations with 1,000 or less ADT. Not well received by the citizens.
(Oriando, AZ)
Not appropriate for our city. (Walnut Creek)
45
Positive-
For higher density, 10+ units per acre, this type of street seems appropriate. The City of
Boulder is going to try this concept on a limited basis. (Boulder)
Appropriate for dense urban areas. (Cupertino)
We would like to try this concept in several neighborhoods when the opportunity to do so
presents itself (Danville)
This concept may be appropriate to some streets but we have no plans for installation.
(Foster City)
Could be used on private streets, cluster homes, PUDs, etc. (Greensboro, NC)
We are considering a new program that will establish criteria to implement some of these
ideas to determine benefits and appropriateness. (Sacramento)
We would like to try this concept but the city is unable to fund it, (Lakewood, CO)
Interested in pursuing this concept. (Littleton, CO)
We would consider for very low volume streets. We are concern about liability issues.
(Livermore)
This would be acceptable in PUD with private streets. (Moraga)
Appropriate for low volume residenfial street with less than 500 ADT. (San Clemente)
Difficult to retrofit, loss of on-street parking. (San Diego)
May be possible to implement for short streets. (Santa Barbara)
This concept may be used in our mixed-use areas but probably not in residential areas.
We may use some of these elements in our new residenfial streets. (Tacoma, WA)
Because of high maintenance we would only consider it for private streets. (Watsonville)
46
Summary of Devices Use
The foiiowing charts summarize the survey and literature flndings about traffic control techniques.
Table 2. Devices Characteristics and Potential- Summary
Traffic
Reduction
Speed
Reduction
Noise &
Pollution
Access Emergency Maintenanc Level of
Restrictions Access e Problems Violation
Speed
Humps
Possible Limited Increase Improved None Minor
Problems
None Low Low
Phrwh
Points
Possible Limited No Ctiange Improved None No
Problems
Vandalism None Moderate
Shift in
Pavement
Possible Likely No Change Improved None Minor
Problems
None None Moderate
Pavement
natrowtng
Possible Likely No Change improved None Minor
Problems
None None Moderate
Pavement
material
No Minor No Change Unclear None No
Problems
None None Moderate
Shared
Space
(Woonerf)
Yi'S Likely Decrease Improved Some Minor
Problems
Vandalism Low High
Other Devices Mentioned
Rumbling
Strips
Unlikely Limited Increase Unclear None Minor
Problems
None Low Low
Stop Si9ns Unlikely None Increase Improved None No
Problems
None Potentially
High
Low
Street
Ctosure
Yes Yes Decrease Improved Yes Some
Constraints
None Low Moderate
Traffic
arde
Possible Likely No Change Unclear None No
Problems
None Low Moderate
Traffic
div9rtets-
tiamefs
Yes Likely Decrease Improved Yes Minor
Problems
Vandalism Low Moderate
Entrance
Tresfrnent
Possible Limited No Change Improved Some Minor
Problems
Vandalism None Moderate
Force Tum Yes Possible Decrease Improved some Minor
Problems
None Potentially
High
Low
47
CONCLUSIONS & PROSPECTS
As a result ofthe study findings, the fotlowing general conclusions can be drawn:
Most cifies are still adhering to published street standards as recommended by different
professional organizations.
Even though most of the cities develop and inscribe their own sets of guidelines and
standards, these are often no different than those published by professional and government
institufions.
Although many city officials acknowledge the need to amend certain aspects of their
regulations and create a more flexible framework for street design, most hold that the current
practice is satisfactory.
The prevalent minimum street standards set by cities are:
• ROW- 50 feet
Roadway width (curb to curb)- 36 feet - (two- 10 foot driving lanes, two -8 foot
parking lanes). This dimension is also deemed to be the most appropriate roadway
width by the majority of the respondents.
Sidewalks- 5 feet (Required by 84%) of the cities).
Planting Strip (between curb and sidewalk), not required.
• Building Setback- 20 feet
Street Trees-1 per lot
The desire to accommodate a "worst case design scenario" such as: cars parked on both
sides of the street, an emergency vehicle with its outriggers, and one open travel lane on a
residential street, often leads to an excessive width, higher travel speeds and probably
fewer pedestrians.
One of the prevalent reasons for not implementing different street configurations and
standards is due to liability concerns. The fact that public street standards are rigid and less
bound to be changed can be seen when compared to private street configurafions. When the
burden of liability is transferred from the city to the homeowners association, typical street
guidelines and standards are categorically changed. The majority of cities (84%)) allow for
such changes, with most permitting different widths and parking configurations.
With regard to the street system, cul-de-sacs are seen by the respondents as the most
appropriate form of street for residential neighborhoods, while grid pattems and through
streets are considered less suitable.
A discrepancy exists between the officials' satisfaction with their cifies' street standards and
the share of traffic problems associated with the streets.
48
This discrepancy can also be seen in the application of traffic control devices used by local
authorities to mitigate these problems.
Residents of residential neighborhoods are the most aware of traffic problems on their
streets. In the majority of cases (75%), it is the local residents who perceive and complain
about traffic related problems. The extent of the residents' complaints might indicate an
inconsistency between professional views, as manifested in street design, and the street
actual traffic performance as experienced by the residents.
Speed of traffic is the most common problem associated with residential streets.
The most common technique utilized by the cifies to control speed is the installation of speed
humps and 4-way stop signs. According to the cities' reports these techniques, as well as
diverters and pavement narrowing, have the most effective results.
Prospects
The independence of local agencies, and their ability to perform away from the government's
yardstick is key to changing regulations and standards. In many parts of the United States such
trends are beginning to emerge. As more communities are wrestling with quality-of-life problems
due to uncontrolled growth, environmental pollution and failure of existing infrastructure, they
begin to take a stronger interest in their local power. The importance of local decision making
and its self-empowerment has also been acknowledged by the federal government. An example
of such can be seen in the federal Inter Model Surface Transportation Efficiency act of 1991.
ISTAE, for the first time, re-authorized the federal-aid highway and transit funds to be distributed
at the discretion of state and local agencies. This act opens the possibility for local communities
to establish their own initiatives, and be supported legally and financially by favorable agencies.
It is important for city officials to realize that courts have usually ruled in favor of local
jurisdictions that approved lower design standards for local roads, as long as the standards were
set in wrifing. (Mercier 1987) In California, as well as in other states, under statutory immunities
titled "design immunity", a public entity is generally not liable for injuries caused by a dangerous
condition of public property if the following three essential elements are satisfied:
(1) a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident.
(2) discretionary approval ofthe plan or design prior to construction or improvement.
(3) substanfial evidence supporting the reasonableness ofthe plan or design.
As stated by the courts in several cases, this type of immunity reflects a legislafive intent to
insulate discrefionary planning and design decisions by responsible public officials from review in
tort litigation. (Preiser 1992, 367-372) These acts are particulariy important as liability and legal
issues are cited by cities' transportafion and public works departments as the most critical issue
associated with the implementation of different street configurations and reduced standards.
49
It seems that in the near future the most probable venue for implementing change in
residential street standards and regulations will be in the private domain. As seen in this study,
most cities allow for a different, more fiexible, set of standards to be implemented on private
streets. A successful example of this approach can be seen at Seaside, Florida, In this private
development the residential streets are composed of one paved surface shared by pedestrians
and cars. There are no raised sidewalks or curbs, and automobile speed is controlled by the
narrow driveway and the short street block. Yet, the private street should only serve as an
interim solution leading to changes of standards for public streets. City officials should realize
that the current practice of allowing a different set of standards on private streets, acknowledges
the inadequacy of their public street standards, and validates the assumption that liability issues
guide change rather than actual performance.
Finally, it is crucial that public and professional agencies and associations such as the
Institute of Traffic Engineers, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, and the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, will periodically
review, revise and make their guidelines versatile. The publications of such official documents
provides the local jurisdictions with the necessary support to justify decision contrary to
conventional practice.
50
References
American Association of State Highway Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural
Highways. Washington, D.C.: AASHO, 1954.
A Policy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas. Washington, D.C.: AASHO, 1957.
Appleyard Donald., et al. Livable Urban Streets: Managing Auto Traffic in Neighborhoods.
FHWA/SES-76-03 Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, January
1976.
Livable Streets. Berkeley, CA.: University of California , 1981.
Beth, Liz and Tim Pharoah, Adapting Residential Roads for Safety and Amenity. England: Dept.
of Town Planning, South Bank Polytechnic. OP 3/88, 1988.
Bjorneboe, Jens. "Traffic Management by Design in One Family Housing Area. Proceedings,
Conference on Road Safety and Traffic Environment in Europe. Gothenburg, Sweden: Sept.
1990. 2-16.
Brilion, Warner, and Harald Blanke. "Trafflc Safety Effects from Traffic Calming." Proceedings,
Conference on Road Safety and Traffic Environment in Europe. Gothenburg, Sweden: Sept,
1990. 135-148.
Brindle R.E. "Traffic Calming in Australia: A Deflnition and Commentary." Australian Road
Research Vol. 21 No. 2 ,1991.
Clement, J.P. "Speed Humps and the Thousand Oaks Experience." ITE Journal, Washington,
D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, January 1983. 35-39.
De Leuw, Cather & Company. Six Months Experience, Berkeley Traffic Management Plan. San
Francisco: De Leuw, Cather & Company, May 1976.
Department ofthe Environment. Children at Play. Bullefin no, 27., London, 1973.
Residential Roads and Footpaths. Bulletin no. 32., London, 1976. (second Edition,
1992)
Devon County Council. Traffic Calming Guidelines. Devon, England, 1991.
Elizer, Marshall, and Nazir Lalani. "Facing Up to a Street Closure Epidemic." ITE Journal,
Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportafion Engineers, October 1994. 24-28.
Engel , Ulla. "Effects of Speed Reducing Measures in Danish Residenfial Areas." Proceedings,
Conference on Road Safety and Traffic Environment in Europe. Gothenburg, Sweden-
Sept. 1990. 95-135.
Farouki, Omar, and William Nixon. "The Effect of the Width of Suburban Roads on the Mean
Free Speed of Cars." Traffic Engineering and Control. London: Vol. 17. No.2. 518-519.
Gennaoui, F. "Residential Street Management." Traffic Management in New South Wales,
Director General of Transport, Australia. 1985.
Homburger, Wolf, Elizabeth Deakin, and Peter Bosselmann. Residential Street Design and
Traffic Control. Washington D.C.: ITE, Prentice Hall, 1989.
51
Institute of Transportation Engineers. "Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design."
Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, May 1984 & 1990.
Recommended Practices for Subdivision Streets. Washington DC: ITE, 1967 & 1984
. Technical Council Committee 5B-15. "Road Bumps-Appropriate for Use on Public
Streets?" ITE Journal, Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, November
1986. 18-21.
Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps. Washington DC: ITE,
1993.
Janssen, S.T. "Road Safety in UriDan Districts. Final Results of Accident Studies in the Dutch
Demonstration Projects ofthe 1970s." Traffic Engineering and Control 32:6 , June, 1991.
JHK and Associates. Neighborhood Protection Techniques and Traffic Control Study. Tucson:
Dept. of Transportation, May 1991.
Klau, Hass C. "Environmental Traffic Management: Pedestrianization and Traffic Restraint: a
Contribution to Road Safety." Road Safety- Proceedings of Seminar P Planning and
Transport Research and Computation, Sussex, England, July 1986. 137-150.
The Pedestrian and City Traffic. London: Belhaven Press, 1990.
. " Civilized Streets: A Guide to Traffic Calming," Environment and Transport Planning.
Brighton England, 1992.
Klik, Marcel, and Adreshir Faghar. "A Comparative Evaluation of Speed Humps and Deviafion."
Transportation Quarteriy, Vol. 47, No. 3, July 1993. 457-469.
Kraay, Joop H., M.P.M. Mathijssen and F.C.M. Wegman. Towards Safer Residential Areas.
The Netheriands, Leidschendam : Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV, 1985.
Kraay, Joop H. "Woonerf and other Experiments in the Netheriands," Built Environment, Vol.
12N01/2, 1986. 20-29.
. Safefy in Residential Areas : the European Viewpoint The Netheriands, Leidschendam
Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV, 1987.
. Safefy Aspects Of Urban Infrastructure : From Traffic Humps To Integrated Urban
Planning. The Netheriands, Leidschendam : Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV,
1989.
Leden, Lars. "Safer Traffic Environment With Speed Control Devices." ITE Journal,
Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, May 1984. 52-53.
Lipinski, Martin. "Neighborhood Traffic Controls." ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering,
New York: American Society of Transportation Engineers, May 1979. 213-221.
Loukissas, Philippos J. "Non-local Traffic in Residential Neighborhood: The Problem and its
Management as Seen by Residents. " Transportation Research Record 812, Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board 1981. 39-46.
Lum, Harry S. "The Use of Road Markings to Narrow Lanes for Controlling Speed in Residential
Areas." ITE Journal, Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 1984.
50-53.
52
Mercier, CR. "Cases for Variable Design Standards for Secondary Roads." Journal of
Transportation Engineering. 113, No. 2. 1987.
Moudon, Anne Vernez. ed. Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Van Nostrand Co., 1987.
Nafional Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. Uniform Vehicle Code / National
Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. Washington : The Committee, 1956,
1987.
New Zealand, National Roads Board. Traffic in Residential Streets, the Social Response. New
Zealand: National Roads Board, 1982.
Omaha, City of. Evaluation of Speed Hump Program in the City of Omaha. Public Works
Department. Omaha, NB: (1988?)
Oriando, City of Neighborhood Traffic Management Oriando, FL: 1993.
Phoenix, City of. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Street Transportation
Department. Phoenix: (Date ?)
Polus, Abishai and Joseph Craus. Evaluation of Characteristics and Recommended Guidelines
for Shared Streets. Research Report No. 90-150 Technion- Israel Institute of Technology, May
1990.
Rutherford, G. Scott, et al. "Traffic Circles for Residential Intersection Control: A Comparison
with Yield Signs Based on Seattle's Experience." Transportation Research Record 1010,
Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 1985. 65-68.
San Diego, City of. Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines. Planning Department,
San Diego: August, 1992.
San Jose, City of. A Study of Speed Bumps. Department of Public Works, San Jose: April 1975.
Southworth, Michael and Eran Ben-Joseph. "Street Standards and the Shaping of Suburbia"
Journal ofthe American Planning Association, Vol. 61 No, Winter 1995.
"Speed Management Through Traffic Engineering," Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24,
no. 1. Feb. 1992.
Tolley, Rodney. Calming Traffic in Residential Areas. Great Britain: Brfi Press, 1990.
Toshi Jutaku Honbun. Anzen Doro. (Safe Roads) Tokyo: May 1980.
Tucson, City of. Neighborhood Protection Technique and Traffic Control Study. Department of
Transportation. Tuscon: May, 1991.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Auto in the City: An Examination ofthe Techniques Mayors
Can Use to Reduce Traffic in Downtown Areas. Contract No. DOT-OS-90011. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. DOT, Office ofthe Secretary, October 1979.
Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices: For Streets And Highways. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration , 1988.
Urban Land Institute. Residential Streets: Objectives, Principles and Design Considerations
Washington D.C: ULI, 1974, 1990.
53
Appendix A.- Survey Sample
Appendix B.- Participating Cities
City Department Telephone
Albany, CA Public Works (510) 528-5759
Antioch, CA Public Works (510) 779-7050
Austin, TX Transportation
Division
(512) 499-7010
Bakersfield, CA Public Works (805) 326-3724
Boulder, CO Public Works (303) 441-3240
Brentwood, CA Public Works (510) 634-6920
Burlingame, CA Public Works (415) 696-7236
Chico. CA General Services (916) 895-4989
Chula Vista, CA Public Works (619) 691-5116
Claremont, CA Public Works (909) 399-5474
Clayton, CA Engineering (510) 672-9700
Col. Springs, CO Transportation (719) 578-6663
Cupertino, CA Public Works (408) 777-3240
Dallas, TX Transportation (214) 670-5035
Danville, CA Development
Services
(510) 820-1080
Del Mar, CA Public Works (619) 755-3294
Denver, CO Public Works (303) 640-3958
Dublin, CA Public Works (510) 833-6630
El Cajon, CA Public Works (619) 441-1651
Foster City, CA Public Works (415) 349-1200
Fresno, CA Public Works (209) 498-1461
Garden Grove, CA Development
Services
(714) 741-5190
Gilroy, CA Public Works (408) 848-0450
Greensboro, NC Transportation (910) 373-2229
Hercules, CA Public Works (510) 799-8242
Houston, TX Public Works (913) 658-4334
In/ine, CA Public Works (714) 724-6425
54
La Mesa, CA Public Works (619) 463-6611
City Department Telephone
Laguna Niguel, CA Public Works (714)362-4377
Lakewood, CO Traffic Engineering (303) 987-7984
Littleton, CO Public Services (303) 795-3863
Livermore, CA Public Works (510) 373-5263
Lodi, CA Public Works (209) 333-6706
Los Altos, CA Public Works (415)948-1491
Los Angeles, CA Transportation (213) 485-6193
Martinez, CA Community
Development
(510) 372-3562
Miami, FL Public Works N/A
Mill Valley, CA Public Works (415) 383-6020
Modesto, CA Public Works (209) 577-5430
Moraga, CA Town Engineer (510) 546-7111
Morgan Hill, CA Public Works (408) 776-7337
Novate, CA City Engineer (415) 897-4354
Omaha, NB Public Works (402) 444-5251
Orlando, FL Public Works (407) 246-3262
Pasadena, CA Public Works (818) 405-4266
Pasadena, TX Public Works (713) 475-7836
Petaluma, CA Public Works (707) 778-4345
Phoenix, AZ Street
Transportation
(602) 262-6136
Pinole, CA Public Works (510) 724-9010
Pittsburg, CA Engineering (510) 439-4930
Pleasant Hill, CA Public Works (510) 671-5252
Pleasanton, CA Traffic Engineering (510) 484-8313
Poway, CA Engineering
Services
(619) 679-4353
Riverside, CA Public Works (909) 782-5327
Sacramento, CA Public Works (916) 264-7508
San Bernadino, CA Public Works (909) 384-5213
55
San Clemente, CA Public Works (714) 498-2533
City Department Telephone
San Diego, CA Traffic Engineering (619) 533-3181
San Francisco, CA Parking and Traffic (415) 554-2307
San Jose, CA Public Works (408) 277-4304
San Mateo, CA Public Works (415) 377-3323
Santa Barbara, CA Transportation and
Parking
(805) 564-5385
Simi Valley, CA Public Works (805) 583-6808
St Petersburg, FL Traffic Engineering (813) 893-7421
Stockton, CA Public Works (209) 937-8428
Tacoma, WA Public Works (206) 591-5269
Tampa, FL Public Works (813) 274-8338
Tracy, CA Public Works (209) 836-4420
Tucson, AZ Transportation (602) 791-4259
Union City, CA Public Works (510) 471-3232
Vacaville, CA Public Works (707) 449-5170
Vallejo, CA Public Works (707) 648-4315
W. Palm Beach, FL Public Works N/A
Walnut Creek, CA Development (510) 256-3529
Watsonville, CA Public Works (408) 728-6095
56
Towhee Traffic Safety
Neighborhood Watch
Business Case
Looking toward Nightshade
Daily Traffic Sample
What happened in 2012
•24 known neighborhoods have speeding issues, city wide sample is probably higher..1/3/12 Carlsbad Residential Traffic Mgt
•To date no resolution for Towhee Lane from city government after many years of citizen contacts since 2005 regarding safety and livable residential street issues
•Transportation Department capable of mitigating 3 to 4 streets per year. Residents ask why?
•Many neighborhoods now feel city government is not listening to residential concerns regarding speeding and dangerous driving in residential neighborhoods
•City Council identified 3/21/2012 “livable streets top priority” Neighborhood Watch groups want speeding mitigating now not in 2014 or 2015
Working the System 2005 - 2012
•First contact with Traffic Transportation 2005.. Murray
•Meeting with Farah Douglas and Transportation Director
December 2011
•Meeting with Mayor Hall February 2012 with
Transportation Director, Farah no show due to foot injury
•Delivered neighborhood petition to city hall clerk April 10,
2012, which got lost at City Hall…approved we fund
•Presenting to Aviara Master Association to pay traffic safety
costs for surplus funding
•Meeting with Lorraine Woods October, 2012, newest
member to CC
2013 request denied toward safe or livable street
funding
Aviara Master Association
Back at City Hall 2013
•Over the past 3 years our Neighborhood Watch has:
•1. identified problems of reckless driving and speeding in excess of 45 MPH
•2. provided the city with several low cost speeding mitigation solutions
•3. compiled professional anecdotal and empirical data collection…in hard copy
•4. even with all these facts the city has failed to execute
•We want a 25 MPH maximum sanctuary as promised in Cal Vehicle Code Section 22351 for residential and business neighborhoods
Actual Speed Authentication
•Average speed on Towhee 30 MPH authenticated
•Carlsbad PD 18 MPH 1/2012 Lt. Reno
How to Accomplish Goal
What Long Time Constituents Say
on second petition 2013
•Noel R. 6649 “residential and commercial vehicles at high
speeds up and down street all times of day and night”
•Ashlee L. 6610 “want safe street for children”
•Shari F. 6642 “hazardous backing out of driveway”
•Kim N. 6633 “not comfortable with 5 yr. old in front yard”
•Richard S. 6658 “problem backing out of driveway”
•Bernice T. 6649 “not safe walking to mail box”
•Karen O. 6625 “danger for kids and animals crossing street”
•Curtis W. 6664 “love to see slower traffic”
Cost Benefit Analysis
•26 SFR on Towhee with annual general fund
contribution @ $6 K = $156 K @ 18% = 28K
annually
•Speed Cushions deliver Self Service
Government… no more spurious studies by Transportation
•City is able to claim true “Livable Streets” in parts
of Aviara
•Current citizen voice is lacking at City Hall based
on no follow up or closure since 2010
Appendix A & B
•A: City of Dana Point… excellent prototype
•B: Residential Street Standards &
Neighborhood Traffic Control UC Berkeley
Study… excellent traffic management listen to people on
the ground