Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 - Neighborhood Traffic Management PolicyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 23 September 12, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Antony Brine, P.E. 949 - 6443329 or tbrine @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Adopt City Council Policy L -26; Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy. DISCUSSION: At the August 22 Study Session, the City Council reviewed and discussed the draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines prepared by staff. The guidelines provide definitions for various traffic calming tools for use in residential neighborhoods. The guidelines also set goals for a citywide traffic management program, outlines criteria for the use of traffic calming measures, and establishes a method of prioritizing requests for traffic calming measures. The proposed Council Policy L -26 is a summary of the guidelines. At the Study Session, the City Council proposed a revision to the guidelines that would require any traffic calming request to include a petition signed by at least five residents within the immediate vicinity of the problem area. This revision has been incorporated in the proposed Policy. The proposed Policy will establish specified speed and traffic volume thresholds for the use of traffic calming measures, and will define the step -by -step process that staff will use to address resident requests. If a street qualifies for traffic calming measures, the policy will require support from seventy percent of the total number of residential units and /or businesses in the area. Environmental Review: Environmental review, is not required for this Council action. Prepared by: Submitted by' Antony Brine, P.t`. S . Badum Principal Civil Engineer ub' orks Director Attachments: Proposed City Council Policy L -26 L -26 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY The City has developed Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines in an effort to provide residents with traffic concerns access to traffic management measures that can serve to alleviate their concerns. It is the intent of this policy to identify traffic calming measures; establish speed and volume thresholds for the implementation of measures and; define step -by -step procedures to address neighborhood traffic concerns. GENERAL The Goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program are: A. Manage the speed of vehicles on residential streets with "demonstrated speeding concerns" (as defined in this Policy) to levels consistent with residential speed limits, or other posted speed limits as determined by the California Vehicle Code or the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Discourage the use of local residential streets by non -local (cut- through) traffic by making the streets less attractive as commuter routes. C. Develop and emphasize focused neighborhood educational programs that will address residential traffic concerns. This shall be accomplished by the preparation of a traffic calming pamphlet; holding neighborhood meetings; and public hearings before the City Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council. D. Implementation of selective police enforcement actions in neighborhoods with traffic related concerns. E. Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle response times, which may potentially be caused by implementation of neighborhood traffic calming measures. F. Limit the potential for shifting traffic from one residential street (or neighborhood) to another when implementing traffic calming measures. G. Respond to complaints in a timely manner TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TOOL BOX Traffic management measures generally fall into three (3) categories: A. Level 1 Tools are comprised of actions and programs that are primarily educational and enforcement based. These tools include neighborhood meetings, police enforcement, signing, and the use of a speed radar trailer. B. Level 2 Tools include the construction of physical improvements to address documented speed concerns. These tools include road narrowing, chokers, gateways, traffic circles, speed bumps, speed tables, and intersection channelization. C. Level 3 Tools include the construction of physical improvements to reduce traffic volumes on a local residential street. These tools include neckdowns, turn restrictions, cul -de -sacs, diagonal diverters, half - closures. The definitions for the different traffic calming tools are included in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines document. CRITERIA The implementation of Level 2 Tools will be considered for those public streets meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The street should be primarily a local, residential street with a posted (or prima facie) speed limit of 25 mph or 30 mph. 2. The section of road shall have no more than one lane in each direction, and shall be a maximum of 44 feet in width curb- to-curb. The street segment shall also be at least 800 feet in length, and have no intermediate STOP signs. 3. The volume of traffic on the street shall be between 500 and 4000 vehicles per day. 4. A speed survey must demonstrate that the 85 percentile speed is greater than 32 mph on a posted 25 mph street, or greater that 37 mph on a posted 30 mph street. Speeds above these thresholds indicate a "demonstrated speed concern". 5. The street must have a sustained longitudinal grade of 6 percent or less. The street must have a horizontal and vertical alignment such that there is adequate sight distance, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Level 2 measures will not be installed if, in the opinion of the City Traffic Engineer, they will result in excessive diversion of traffic to parallel local residential streets. 7. Proposed Level 2 measures will be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments for potential impacts to public safety response times. The implementation of Level 3 Tools will be considered for those public streets meeting criteria 1, 2, 6, and 7 as noted above, and as required by Level 2 Tools. In addition the following criteria must be met: 1. The volume of traffic on the street shall be greater that 4000 vehicles per day. PROCESS The following step -by -step procedures will be used by the City to address neighborhood traffic concerns: A. A resident will inform the City of a potential problem area. Any traffic calming request is required to include a petition signed by at least five (5) residents within the immediate vicinity of the problem area. B. The City will review the roadway conditions and collect the appropriate traffic speed and volume data. If it is determined that an immediate safety issue exists, staff will initiate a project to address the situation. Otherwise, staff will initiate the appropriate Level 1 traffic calming measures. C. The Level 1 measures shall be in place for a minimum of three (3) months. If the Level 1 measures do not address the residents concerns, the City will review the traffic data that has been collected, discuss the issues with the Police and Fire Departments, and determine if the street qualifies for Level 2 or Level 3 measures. The residents will be informed of the results of the traffic analysis. D. If the traffic data indicates that the street(s) may qualify for Level 2 or Level 3 measures, a survey will be mailed. out to the neighborhood to identify specific concerns. After responses to the survey are received, a neighborhood meeting will be held. This meeting may be used to develop recommended Level 2 or Level 3 implementation measures. A representative of the Public Works Department and the Police Department will attend the meeting. E. A draft improvement plan shall be prepared, and submitted to the residents. The City will schedule a meeting of the Traffic Affairs Committee. The area residents will be invited to the meeting to provide their input. The Traffic Affairs Committee will recommend approval or denial of the project. If approved, the project will be submitted to the residents with an approved petition for signatures. F. A neighborhood representative shall be responsible for circulation of the petition. The petition will be prepared by City staff together with the residents, and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to circulation. The City will provide a map of the affected area and a listing of all residents' addresses to the designated neighborhood representative. The petition should include only residents or businesses within the affected area. Person(s) circulating the petition shall attempt to contact all affected residences or businesses. Residents must be at least 18 years old to sign. The petition must include the current address, printed name, and signature for each resident. The petition requesting the neighborhood traffic management measures must be supported by seventy (70) percent of the total number of residential units /businesses. G. If neighborhood support is demonstrated through the petition process, the project will be forwarded to City Council for approval. All Level 2 or.Level 3 measures shall be approved by City Council prior to design or construction. If the petition process is unsuccessful, City staff will continue undertaking the appropriate Level 1 actions. PRIORITY Requests for the installation of traffic calming measures using City funds shall be prioritized by the City Traffic Engineer considering the following factors: 1. Date of petition submittal. 2. Volume of traffic using the street. 3. Percentage of traffic exceeding the threshold speed limit. 4. Other factors including, but not limited to, number of houses, presence of parks or schools, street width, and number of residential driveways. The City shall also take into account any letters of interest from the residents (or Homeowners Associations) to provide funding for all or part of the costs of the design and construction of the improvements. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COUNCIL AGENDA M Z3 9-11.010 Study Session No. ss2 August 22, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Antony Brine, P.E. 949-644-3311 or tbrine@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION: Review the "Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines" dated July 2006 and direct staff to place the guidelines on a future City Council Agenda for final approval. DISCUSSION: The guidelines presented to the City Council are the culmination of comprehensive research by staff in the field of traffic calming.. This research included reviews of many similar national and international programs, attendance at local and national seminars, review of periodicals and textbooks.on the .subject, and membership in the Southern California Traffic Calming Users Group. Staff used traffic calming programs from the cities of Pasadena, Ventura, Sunnyvale, Portland (Oregon), Houston (Texas), Collier County (Florida), and Boulder (Colorado) as references In the preparation of the initial .draft guidelines. The initial draft guidelines were tailored to meet the unique characteristics of Newport Beach neighborhoods. The topic of neighborhood traffic calming has been discussed at several City Council meetings and study sessions in the past two years. Staff reports for the Council meetings of June 22, 2004, and July 27, 2004, presented neighborhood study updates, a summary of previous traffic calming practices in the city, definitions of traffic calming "tool box" measures, and a discussion of evaluation processes and funding policy. The previous staff reports are attached for reference. At the August 10, 2004; City Council meeting, the Council approved Resolution No. 2004 -75 creating a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee. The members of the Committee included Mayor Webb, Councilman Rosansky, the City Manager, the Public Works Director, the City Traffic Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief. Meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee were held between December 2005 and April 2006. The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the initial draft guidelines and provided specific Nelghhodmod Traffic Calming Guidelines August 22, 2006 Page 2 comments . and direction which led to the "Neighborhood Traffic . Management Guidelines "'submitted to the Council at this meeting. The final Guidelines include a compr2hensive step -by -step process addressing the receipt of a resident request, collection of traffic data, review of the existing neighborhood conditions, and implementation of different levels of traffic calming measures. The step -by -step process is the backbone of the program. The way in which the public and the residents are treated by staff, and the process by which various alternatives are analyzed is as important as any physical Improvement or administrative regulation implemented. The process, however, cannot include Public Works staff only. This program requires significant citizen involvement. Residents will seek to create traffic management programs in their specific neighborhood, and their active and on -going participation is absolutely necessary to achieve a successful program. A project developed by both staff and the residents jointly will have a greater likelihood of area -wide acceptance. Another key aspect of the program is the neighborhood petition process. Should a particular street or neighborhood qualify for traffic management improvements, surveys will be mailed out and neighborhood meetings will be held to discuss a potential project. The next step would be to invite residents to a Traffic Affairs Committee meeting to discuss and review a draft project plan. Should a draft plan be approved by the Traffic Affairs Committee, the residents will be required to circulate a petition throughout the neighborhood for signature. The Guidelines require that the petition for support be signed by 70 percent of all residential addresses. This petition process is a very important part of the overall program. It places responsibility on the residents to discuss the.issues with their neighbors, and gamer support for a proposed project. The previous City "Road Bump" program was ultimately eliminated by the City Council in 1994 because, in some cases, misinformation and insufficient support led to divisiveness among neighbors regarding proposed projects. . As part of this Program, the guidelines state that the City Council shall establish an annual budget for traffic calming improvements. The annual budgeted amount in the last several CIPs has been $ 50,000. It should be noted that a limited number of traffic calming improvements can be completed within this established budget. Because it is anticipated that the requests for improvements will exceed the budget, the Program includes a priority process for budgeting of improvements. The proposed program guidelines. do not require funding from residents to install any improvements. However, a higher priority will be assigned to projects where residents or Homeowners Associations commit to provide funding for all or part of the costs of the design and construction of improvements. The neighborhoods most recently studied were Newport Heights/Cliff Haven, and Newport Hills/Harbor View. Community meetings were held In each neighborhood to receive input and to discuss the respective projects. Both neighborhood studies, with proposed improvements, were completed in August 2004. The planned improvements in these neighborhoods were placed on hold pending the approval of city -wide Traffic Nefghbortrood Traffic Calming Guidelines August 22.2008 Page 3 Calming Guidelines. Approved uniform guidelines, minimum speed and volume thresholds, and other criteria need to be in place so that every neighborhood in the city could be analyzed in a consistent and fair manner. The Capital Improvement Program for 2006 -07 includes $187,000 for improvements in Newport Heights/Cliff Haven, and $40,000 for improvements in Newport Hills/Harbor View. Environmental Review: Not applicable at this time. Prepared by: Submitted Antony Brine, P.E. ° ��en . Badum Principal Civil Engineer Works Director . Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines City of Newport Beach Prepared by: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department July 2006 Table of Contents Introduction Objective Coals Previous City Practices Traffic Management Tool Box Description of Neighborhood Traffic Management Measures LEVEL MEASURES • Education —Neighborhood Meeting • Education —Radar Trailer • Police Enforcement • Signing LEVEL 2 MEASURES • Narrowing Lanes • Chokers • Gateways • Neighborhood Roundabout/Traffic Circles • Speed Humps /Speed Tables • Intersection Channelization LEVEL 3 MEASURES * Neckdowns * Turn Restriction * Cul -de -sac Neighborhood Traffic Management Cruidehnes City of Newport Beach 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 M7 1.3 2 LEVEL 3 MEASURES (CONTINUED) Diagonal. Diverters 9 Half - Closures 9 Basic Criteria — Guidelines 9 Step-by-Step Process 11 Petition Requirements Petition Review Process Effects of Traffic Management Measures Priority of Installation List of Figures Process Flowchart Figures of Neighborhood Traffic Management Measures 13 14 15 16 Neighborhood 1Yaffic Management Guidelines 3 City of Newport Beach INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Traffic Management Program has been developed in an effort to provide residents with concerns for traffic safety, access to traffic management measures that can serve to alleviate their concerns. The program requires significant citizen involvement, but has been designed to address traffic concerns in a timely manner by relying on City staff to take the initial steps to address requests. Final traffic management measures will be recommended by the City Traffic Affairs Committee and approved by the City Council. The City has received numerous concerns in recent years and requests from residents regarding a variety of traffic related issues within residential neighborhoods. These concerns are generally focused on excessive speeds (both real and perceived), high traffic volumes, or number of accidents. Traffic engineers have developed techniques to reduce the negative impacts of such problems in urban settings over the years. These techniques are referred to as traffic management or "traffic calming." This Neighborhood Traffic Management Program has been developed through a comprehensive evaluation of similar efforts in other municipalities throughout North America. Some of the materials presented in this report are drawn from .documents prepared for those municipalities. Obviously each community must carefully evaluate and choose only those techniques that are suitable for their needs, and that will enjoy public support. No single answer exists for the problem of speeding vehicles on all residential streets. Traffic calming can be a very positive tool when used effectively and when implemented following a well - defined process that the public understands and agrees with. This report provides a "Tool Box" of neighborhood traffic management measures. These measures range from the use of radar speed display boards, selective police enforcement, traffic signing and striping, and non - traditional improvements such as street chokers, speed humps and neighborhood traffic circles. This report identifies each technique's advantages and disadvantages, establishes general parameters for their use, and sets policies and procedures for their implementation. OBJECTIVE The objective of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is to improve the livability of residential neighborhoods and to minimize adverse impacts of vehicular traffic on residential streets through a system of education, enforcement, and engineering improvements. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 4 City of Newport Beach As previously noted, Neighborhood Traffic Management is frequently referred to as "traffic calming." Those two terms will be used interchangeably throughout this document. Traffic calming techniques were developed to reduce speeding problems and heavy traffic flow on residential streets. By making some residential streets more "calm," it makes the neighborhood more livable. In essence, when a resident calls to request a STOP sign or speed humps on their street, they are requesting the City to make their street more livable. However, an approach such as installing an unwarranted STOP sign is often not the appropriate application, and may decrease the safety of the street. That is why there needs to be a comprehensive approach to "traffic calming" and neighborhood livability. GOALS 1) Manage the speed of vehicles on residential streets with "demonstrated speeding concerns" (as defined within this report) to levels consistent with residential speed limits, or other posted limits as determined by the California Vehicle Code or the City Municipal Code. 2) Discourage the use of local residential streets by non -local (cut- through) traffic by making the streets less attractive as a commuter route. 3) Develop and emphasize focused neighborhood educational programs that will address residential traffic concerns. Encourage citizen participation throughout the program by seeking resident input. This shall be accomplished through neighborhood meetings, written communication, open forum workshops, and public hearings before the City Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council. 4) Implement selective enforcement actions in neighborhoods with traffic related concerns. 5) Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle respon potentially be caused by implementation of management measures. 6) Limit the potential for shifting traffic from one neighborhood) to another when implementing measures. 7) Respond to complaints in a timely manner. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines City of Newport Beach se times, which may neighborhood traffic residential street (or traffic management PREVIOUS CITY PRACTICES As noted earlier, the Public Works Department receives numerous requests from residents asking for the installation of STOP signs, speed humps, etc. Due to the absence of approved guidelines, policies, or funding, staffs efforts to respond to these requests has been limited. The Police Department routinely uses its radar speed trailer on streets where vehicle speeds have been reported as a problem. In almost all instances the speed trailer deployment was supported by the concerned residents because of a real or perceived decrease in speeds, or by educating the residents to the fact that speeds are not as high as had been perceived. Prior to 1994, the City had a 'Road Bump Policy" that included a process for residents to petition for the installation of road bumps, or speed humps, on their street. In 1994 the City Council deleted the policy because of problems that arose during certain speed hump installation projects. The original policy required that 67 percent of residents on a street support the installation of speed humps for the project to he implemented. In some cases, the residents in the minority vociferously opposed the project after construction started, which led to disputes between neighbors and complaints to the City Council. Thus, the City Council decided to delete the 'Road Bump" program. In order to avoid any reoccurrence of such problems during-project implementation, this Program has been developed to include an extensive resident participation process. This process will be defined in detail throughout this document. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TOOL BOX One of the major objectives of this report is to identify and categorize the various techniques, or "tools," used in the overall process of neighborhood traffic calming activities. Traffic management measures generally fall into three (3) categories. The first category, noted within this report as Level 1, does not involve the use of "hard" physical controls or impediments on the roadway system. This group is comprised of actions and programs that are primarily educational and enforcement based. The second category, noted within this report as Level 2, includes the construction of physical improvements to the neighborhood street system which will address documented speed issues. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 6 City of Newport Beach The third category, noted within this report as Level 3, includes the construction of "hard" physical improvements to reduce traffic volumes on a local residential street. There are two primary differences between Level 2 and Level 3 improvements; the potential impact to emergency service, and the potential for inconvenience to the local residents. Following is a description of the City of Newport Beach approved traffic calming tools. Graphic representations of these tools are provided later in this report. Other traffic calming tools may be considered for inclusion in this program at a later date. DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES Level One Traffic Calminc Tools Education — Neighborhood Meetings = This program consists of holding neighborhood meetings, and sending out letters and pamphlets to residents alerting them of speeding and other traffic concerns. This type of neighborhood awareness program will hopefully result in neighbors more closely obeying existing traffic laws and will result in Improved safety for all roadway users. Education — Radar Trailer = When appropriate, the City will deploy its radar speed trailer to educate motorists regarding the fact that they may be significantly exceeding the posted speed limit. The trailer deployment also sometimes results in allowing concerned neighbors to see that actual traffic speeds may not be as high as what had been perceived. Police Enforcement = This is traditional enforcement activity on the part of the Police Department's traffic enforcement officers. The intent is to modify behavior to result in a safer situation for all drivers and neighbors. Signing = Signs are installed at selected points to remind drivers that they are entering a residential neighborhood, and they should reduce their speeds. Level Two Traffic Calmina Tools Narrowing LaneS = This tool consists of striping changes on the street that are made to reduce the apparent width of the roadway. This gives the driver the fees of a narrow street which sometimes reduces speeds on the street. When appropriate, striping changes and additions will be reviewed with interested neighbors. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 7 City of Newport Beach Chokers = Chokers narrow the street by physically widening the sidewalk or the landscaped parkway. The narrower street generally results in reduced traffic speeds and provides pedestrians with shorter crossing distances. Gateways = Gateway treatments consist of physical and textural changes to streets and are located at key entry ways into a neighborhood. Gateway improvements provide a visual statement that drivers are entering a local residential area. For gateway improvements, the City would require the Homeowners Association provide financial support. Neighborhood Roundabout/Traffic Circles = This device is a raised circular island in the middle of a residential neighborhood intersection. Straight - through movements are obstructed by the raised island causing traffic to move to the right around the. circle. The intersection approaches are normally controlled by yield signs which serve to alert motorists to the need to slow their speed entering the intersection. Speed Humps = Speed humps are approximately 12 feet in length and 2.5 inches in height. This raised pavement serves to physically force motorists to reduce their speed. In order to be effective, speed humps should be spaced approximately 300 feet apart. Speed Tables = Speed Tables are speed humps with a long flat section which are generally used at crosswalk locations. Both speed humps and speed tables require signing and roadway markings to make their presence known to motorists and other roadway users. Intersection Channelization = These features are small diagonal median islands constructed within an intersection to force vehicles from traveling in a straight path. Level Three Traffic Calming Tools Neckdowns = A neckdown is a method of narrowing the roadway by extending the raised curbs into the street at an intersection. These are constructed to discourage cut - through traffic and also to reduce speeds at the neighborhood entry points. Turn Restriction = These are traffic islands or curbs specifically designed to prevent traffic from making turning movements at an intersection.. Cul -de -sac = This is the complete barricade or termination of a street either at an intersection or a mid -block location. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines S City of Newport Beach Diagonal Diverters = These are barriers placed diagonally across an intersection to force drivers to make a particular turn but not allow other movements. Half- Closures = This is a barrier to traffic in one direction, that permits traffic in the opposite direction to proceed. BASIC CRITERIA - GUIDELINES Neighborhood Traffic Management is a. very resource- intensive (regarding staff time and possible construction cost) program. It is important to distinguish between "real" problems and "perceived" problems as early as possible in the evaluation process. The following.guidelines compare the measured speeds and volumes on a given street with standards of what is normal or reasonable within residential neighborhoods. It is clear that many residential streets serve some vehicle trips other than those generated by immediate .residents of that street. It is also apparent that normal travel speed on residential streets generally exceeds the somewhat artificial speed limit of 25 -30 mph. The guidelines reflect these realities. Before considering the initiation of City actions beyond Level 1 traffic management measures (education and enforcement), the City shall complete speed surveys and traffic counts on the street in question. The data collected should indicate traffic speeds and/or volumes exceed thresholds that have been identified as typical (or reasonable) for a local residential street. Federal and State speed limit guidelines both define "reasonable speed" as the speed that 85 percent of drivers do not exceed. Research of speed data within Newport Beach, and within other municipalities in California, shows that the typical 8e Percentile speed on a local 25 mph residential street is approximately 32 mph. In most instances, the primary cause for resident concern is the speed of vehicles. However, in other instances, residents are also concerned about the volume of traffic on their street.' Almost all of the volume - related concerns involve those streets that serve as the obvious means of getting to /from (or through) .a neighborhood. Many references have concluded that any traffic volume of between 1000 and 2000 vehicles per day can be considered relatively normal. Older neighborhoods often were designed with key streets intended to carry higher volumes from the area out to the arterial roadways. Neighborhood layout must be considered in evaluating measured traffic volumes against the guidelines. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 9 City of Newport Beach Resident requests for the implementation of Level 2 neighborhood traffic management measures on public streets will be considered by the City for those streets meeting all of the following qualifying criteria: 1. The street should be primarily a local, residential street with a posted (or prima facie) speed limit of 25 mph or 30 mph. 2. The section of road must have no more than one lane in each direction, and be a maximum of 44 feet in width curb- to-curb. The street segment shall also be at least 800 feet in length, and have no intermediate STOP signs. 3. The volume of traffic on the street shall be between 500 and 4000 vehicles per day. Volumes outside this range indicate relatively low usage, or that the street is a collector -type street in the circulation system. 4. A speed survey must demonstrate that the 85h percentile speed is greater than 32 mph on a posted 25 mph street, or greater that 37 mph on a posted 30 mph street. Speeds above these thresholds indicate a "demonstrated speed concern." 5. The street must have a sustained longitudinal grade of 6 percent or less. The street must have a horizontal and vertical alignment such that there is adequate sight distance, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer: 6. Level 2 traffic management measures will not be installed if, in the opinion of the City Traffic Engineer, they will result in excessive diversion of traffic to parallel local residential streets. 7. Proposed Level 2 traffic management measures will be reviewed by the City's Police and Fire Departments for potential impacts to public safety response times. These comments will be considered by the Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council. Resident requests for the implementation of Level '3 neighborhood traffic management measures on public streets will be considered by the City for those streets meeting all of the following qualifying criteria: 1. The street should be primarily a local, residential street with a posted (or prima facie) speed limit of 25 mph or 30 mph. 2. The section of road must have no more than one lane in each direction, and be a maximum of 44 feet in width curb -to -curb. The street segment Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 10 City of Newport Beach shall also be at least 800 feet in length, and have no intermediate STOP signs. 3. The volume of traffic on the street shall be greater than 4000 vehicles per day. Volumes below this level would not indicate an unlivable traffic volume for a local street. Volumes below this level also would not be sufficient to justify construction of measures that could potentially impact residential traffic in a large area, and could impact emergency access. The City Traffic Engineer shall evaluate the neighborhood to determine if the measured traffic volumes are inappropriately high. Certain residential streets are designed to serve local traffic entering or exiting the neighborhood, and can expect higher traffic volumes. 4. Level 3 traffic management measures will not be installed if, in the opinion of the City Traffic Engineer, they will result in excessive diversion of traffic to parallel local residential streets, or adjacent neighborhoods. 5. Proposed Level 3 traffic management measures will be reviewed by the City's Police and Fire Departments for potential impacts to public safety response times. These comments will be considered by the Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council. STEP -BY -STEP PROCESS Successful traffic management programs include a detailed planning process, overall community participation and local authority support. Because residents are the main initiators of traffic calming requests, they need to be part of the process as much as possible. A citizen education/participation campaign encourages the neighborhood to take responsibility for the solution. Residents must be. part of the solution, because experience has shown that a majority of speed violations and volume concerns within a residential area are directly caused by the residents who live in the neighborhood itself. The experience of many municipalities has indicated that the "process" is more important than the actual physical changes resulting from the process. This means that the way in which the public and neighbors are treated, and the process by which various alternatives are analyzed, is more important than the actual physical or administrative measures implemented. It is important to note that as part of this Program, the vast majority of resident concerns/complaints will continue to be directly handled by staff on a one- to-one basis by using current practices. This means that in instances where the City receives a concern about a neighborhood traffic safety condition, staff will respond with traditional studies and follow -up actions. In instances where it becomes apparent that the request could lead to the consideration of Level 2 or Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines it City of Newport Beach Level 3 traffic calming actions, it is important that a clear process be established that will define the roles of the City and the residents. The following step -by -step procedures will be used by the City to address neighborhood traffic concerns. STEP 1. Receive Request Resident informs the City regarding a potential problem area. If the problem specifically involves speeding or cut- through traffic, the complaint will be processed through the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. STEP 2. Collect Data — Identify Problems Traffic Engineering staff will review the roadway signing, striping and traffic controls in the vicinity, and will gather the .appropriate traffic speed and volume data. The City Traffic Engineer will review the data collected and determine if there are immediate safety concerns on the street in question. This determination will be made based on roadway conditions and accident history. If it is determined that a safety issue exists, staff will initiate a project to address the situation. If an immediate safety issue does not exist, staff will initiate the appropriate Level 1 traffic management measures. This could include mailing out traffic management pamphlets, setting up the speed radar trailer, and providing additional police enforcement. STEP 3. Analyze Data _ Determine Qualification If, after the Level 1 measures are in -place for a minimum of 3 months, the City determines that the Level 1 measures do not adequately address the applicant's concerns, the City may conduct additional studies to determine If Level 2 or Level 3 measures are appropriate. This will include consulting the Police and Fire Departments to determine if the street is critical to emergency vehicle response. If a review of traffic data determines that the street(s) does not meet the criteria for consideration of Level 2 or Level 3 measures, the resident will be informed of the staffs efforts and the results of the studies and enforcement. STEP 4. Survey Residents — Develop Solutions — Neighborhood Meeting If the traffic data indicates that the streets) may qualify for Level 2 or Level 3 traffic management improvements, a survey will be mailed out to the neighborhood to identify specific concerns. After the responses to the survey are received, a Neighborhood Meeting will be held to provide information to the residents regarding options available under the City's program. City staff will identify whether the concerns are widespread throughout the neighborhood. This meeting may be used to develop recommended Level 2 or Level 3 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 12 City of Newport Beach implementation measures. A representative of the City's Public Works Department and the Police Department should attend the meeting. STEP 5. Prepare Draft Plan — Traffic Affairs Committee Review Staff will determine the geographical area which will be part of the project. A Level 2 or Level 3 draft Improvement plan shall be prepared, and submitted to the residents. The City will schedule a meeting of the Traffic Affairs Committee (TAC). The residents will be invited to the TAC meeting to provide their input regarding the proposed project. The Traffic Affairs Committee will review and recommend approval or denial of the project. If approved by TAC, the project will be submitted to the residents with an approved petition for signatures. If denied by TAC, City staff will continue to work with the residents to address their concerns. A denial by TAC can be appealed to the City Council. STEP 6. Petition Process The residents shall submit the signed petitions as outlined in this document. Staff will work with the Individual(s) requesting Level 2 or Level 3 actions to develop petition language which not only describes the concern and proposed improvements, but also describes the potential negative impacts and implications for the affected neighborhood. A neighborhood representative will circulate the petition for signatures per the requirements outlined below. STEP 7. Implement Solutions If neighborhood support for the project is demonstrated through the petition process, the project will be forwarded to City Council for approval. All Level 2 or Level 3 traffic management measures shall be approved by the City Council prior to design or construction. PETITION REQUIREMENTS As part of Step 6 in the process, a petition will be prepared by the City, and circulated for signature by a neighborhood representative. The following procedures must be followed for submitting a petition for Level 2 or Level 3 measures to the City: a. The City ,Traffic Engineer, or designee, will examine the technical feasibility and anticipated impacts of the proposed neighborhood traffic management measures. This review will include items such as the type of road or street involved, compliance with engineering regulations, existing and proposed traffic conditions, discussions with Police and Fire Departments, the potential for traffic diversion to adjacent streets, impacts to emergency vehicle response times, and potential liability for the City. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 13 City of Newport Beach b. The City Traffic Engineer, or designee, will determine the boundary of the "affected area" to be petitioned and balloted. The City will provide a map of the affected area and listing . of all residents' addresses to the designated neighborhood representative. A neighborhood wide approach should be taken in determining the study area. The size of the study area should be limited to only those streets that may be affected by any proposed improvements. C. A petition will be prepared by the City staff, together with the resident(s), requesting the traffic management measures. The petition shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to circulation for signatures. A volunteer neighborhood representative shall be responsible for circulation of the petition within the "affected area ". The petition reguesting the percent of the total number of residential units/businesses. The petition should include only residents or business owners within the "affected area". Person(s) circulating petitions are required to contact all affected residences or businesses. Residents must be at least 18 years old to sign the petition. d. At a minimum, petitions submitted to the City for review must include, the following unless otherwise waived by the City Council: A current address, printed name and signature for each resident who signs the petition. 2. The petition language must clearly explain, and show on a drawing or plan, the location, and the nature of the proposed traffic management measures and potential impacts. A sample petition has been provided as an attachment. PETITION REVIEW PROCESS The following process will be used by the City to review all petitions associated with proposed neighborhood traffic management measures. a. The City Traffic Engineer, or designee, will review any petition to verify compliance with all petition requirements set forth above. Any petition not complying with these requirements will be rejected. b. If the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, meets the minimum number of signatures in favor of the proposed measures, and is properly verified, staff will prepare a report to City Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 14 City of Newport Beach Council indicating the neighbors concerns, history of City actions, a description of the possible actions, their likely cost, potential impacts, and a complete summary of the petition process and results. At that time, the City Council will be asked to determine whether the City should proceed with the Level 2 or Level 3 traffic management improvements. This is Step 7 in the process. C. If the Petition process is unsuccessful, City staff will continue undertaking the appropriate action from the Level 1 toolbox. EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES Before the City decides to pursue Level 2 or Level 3 traffic management measures, Level 1 options need to be fully tested. It is important that the impacts of all Levels of traffic management be carefully considered. While Level 2 and Level 3 measures can be successful, they can also result in problems more significant than the original concern. In most instances, the benefits are quite obvious, while the disadvantages can be much more unexpected. Decisions involving traffic calming measures should be made in a fully informed manner. Emergency Response The City, as well as its residents and businesses, places a very high priority on minimizing emergency response times. installation of many physical traffic calming features can increase emergency response time. This is especially true for fire apparatus and ambulances. Some studies have been done to quantify the effect of traffic calming devices on emergency response time. These studies show the following average delays to emergency vehicles for certain types of devices. TYPE OF DEVICE Each speed hump Each traffic circle AMBULANCES 2.3 — 9.7 seconds Not available FIRE TRUCKS 3 — 5 seconds 1.3 —10.7 seconds The City's Police and Fire Departments have indicated a concern about the affect these devices have on .response times. These Departments will be included in the review of any Level 2 or Level 3 improvements. Area -wide Planning One concern is that, in many instances, implementing traffic calming devices will likely move the problem rather than solve the problem. The placing of impediments on a particular neighborhood street may merely divert some or most Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 15 City of Newport Beach of that traffic to other. neighborhood streets. In these cases, a neighborhood wide approach should be taken. In fact, national experience suggests that traffic calming should be planned on an area -wide basis, but not such a large area that it becomes difficult to achieve consensus. Another concern deals with the inconvenience that is forced upon residents of the neighborhood themselves. Generally, reported traffic problems are a result of a small percentage of drivers being irresponsible. Most Level 2 and Level 3 devices require vehicles to slow down, turn, traverse humps, etc. Most traffic calming tools require all residents to endure additional delays, noise, etc. on a daily basis. These potential neighborhood impacts are the justification for the detailed and extensive petition requirements. Liability Concerns Many Level 2 and Level 3 traffic calming actions can also result in varying degrees of liability exposure to the City. Liability issues might arise from the negative impact to emergency vehicle response times. It is also possible that the traffic calming devices themselves might result in damage or injury. For example, if a traffic calming device were not properly designed with all appropriate striping and signing, etc., liability exposure could result. Government Code Section 835.4(a) provides that a public entity is.not liable for injury caused by a condition of its property if the public entity establishes that the act or omission that created the condition was "reasonable." Thus, the City must prove that the installations were carefully considered and that there was a rational basis for deciding "yes" in one instance and "no" in another similar instance. PRIORITY OF INSTALLATION As part of this Program, the City Council will establish an annual budget for Neighborhood Traffic Management improvements. If a significant number of neighborhoods request and qualify for improvements in a given Fiscal Year, City staff will need to establish a priority process. Requests for the installation of traffic calming features using City funds shall be prioritized by the City Traffic Engineer considering the following factors: Date of petition submittal. 2. Volume of traffic using the street. 3. Percentage of traffic exceeding the threshold speed limit. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 16 City of Newport Beach 4. Other factors relating to the impacts of speed. concerns and volume concerns on the neighborhood including, but not limited to, number of houses, presence of parks or schools, street width and .number of residential driveways. The City shall also take into account any letters of interest from the residents (or Homeowners Associations) to provide funding for all or part of the costs of the design and construction of the improvements. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines 17 City of Newport Beach Exhibits Resident Request STEP 1 Collect Data STEP 2 Identify Problems Is There an Immediate YES Construct Safety Safety Issue? Improvements NO Implement Level 1 Education/Enforcement 3 Months Review Data STEP 3 Determine Qualification Does Street Qualify? YES NO Survey Residents. Send Lester to Resident Develop Solutions STEP 4 Hold Neighborhood Meeting Prepare Draft Plan STEP 5 Traffic Affairs Committee Less Than Petition 70% Support STEP 6 Process 70% Suppo City Council Review /Approval STEP -7 Implement Solutions Chsra -7-MAw Level 1 Measures WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR INSTALLING STOP SIGHTS ? A Stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the right place and under the right conditions. The Stop .sign is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at an intersection decide who has the right-of-way.. Often, Stop signs, especially four -way Stop _sign control, .are viewed as an easy cure -all for solving residential speeding problems. A common misuse of Stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other rotytes. When Stop signs am installed as "nuisances" or "speed breakers ", there is a high incidence of intentional violation. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the-speed reduction is - effective only in -the immediate vicinity of the Stop sigh, and frequently speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, Stop signs should not be used as speed control devices.. Stop control on a minor street may be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: " a. At the intersection of a less important road with amain road, where application of the normal right -of -way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable. compliance with the law; b. Restricted view or accident records indicate a need for control-by a Stop sign. A Stop sign should not be installed on a major street (i.e. arterial roadway) unless justified by an engineering study. A multi-way (or four -way) Stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. The City _ uses well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines to indicate when such controls become necessary. These guidelines take into consideration: a. Accident records, as.indicated by 5 or more reported crashes.in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way Stop installation. b. Minimum vehicular volumes, for the combined. major and .minor street approaches, of at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS AND IN-PAVEMENT WARNING LIGHTS In- Pavement Lights are special types. of highway lighting installed in the roadway surface to warn mad users that they are approaching a condition on or adjacent to the roadway that might not be readily apparent, and might require the mad users to slow down and/or come to a stop. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, marked school crosswalks, marked mid -block crosswalks, marked crosswalks on uncontrolled approaches, marked crosswalks in advance of roundabout intersections, and other roadway situations involving pedestrian crossings. Because in- pavement lights are typically used at crosswalks, the installations are often referred to as "illuminated crosswalks ". These devices are normally dark, but they initiate a flashing yellow light when the pedestrian crossing is in use. The City is currently involved in the development of plans for the installation of illuminated crosswalks at two locations. These will be the first illuminated crosswalks in the city. The planned system of in- pavement warning lights, together with overhead actuated flashing b eacons, o ffer p romise o f improved safety and b etter compliance b y motorists for the pedestrian's legal right -of -way at permitted crossings. The City currently does not have any criteria or guidelines for the. installation of in- roadway warning lights. The planned installations were based primarily on high pedestrian volumes and accident history. Some cities with experience in these projects have developed detailed guidelines which focus on the possible use of these devices at locations where they will be most effective. Criteria can include the following; - average vehicular approach speeds; - an established traffic volume range; - advance visibility of the crosswalk/safe stopping distance; - no other crosswalks or traffic control devices within 250.300 feet; - a minimum pedestrian volume; - is the crosswalk adjacent to a school or a community facility; - accident history at the crosswalk; - roadway cross - section width; Any proposed illuminated crosswalk projects will be reviewed by the Public Works Department on a ease -by -case basis. COST ESTIMATES FOR TRAMC CALMING TOOLS (20061.. . - Signing $ 100 - 300 each - Narrowing Lanes/Stnpmg $ 3,000 - 5,000 - Choker $ 1.000 . - Gateway $ 5,000 — 30;000 - Traffic Circle $ 15,000 — 30,000 - Speed Hump $ 2,000 - Intersection Channelization island $ 5,000 — 10,000 - Neckdown (mid -block curb ext.) $ 15,000 - Neckdown (intersection curb ext.) $ 20,000 per comer - Neckdown (median island) $ 15,000 - Tum restriction $.5,000-25,000 - Cul-de -sac $ 75,000. - 100,000 - Diagonal diverters $ 50,000 - Half- closure $ 10,000- 20,000 DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES Neighborhood. Meeting Description: Hold a neighborhood meeting at a time and location convenient for residents to attend and express their concerns. The meeting Would be used to dearly identify the issues of concern. Positive Aspects: • Clearly identifies Issues of concern. • Allows all residents to air their views. • Establishes Gear lines of communication between City staff and residents. Negative Aspects: • Meetings have to be focused on specific issues and not allowed to become a forum to address all the City's problems. • Potentially time consuming if meetings are repetitious. 3-10 Radar Trailer Description: A portable radar speed meter capable of measuring vehicle speed graphicly and displaying the speed of the motorist. Positive Aspects: • Speeds maybe reduced during short Intervals where the radar trailer is located. • An effective public relations and educational tool. Negative Aspects: • Not an enforcement tool. • Not effective on mult14ane roadways that have significant traffic volumes. In these cases there Is limited ability to differentiate between more than one approaching vehicle. 3-5 Police Enforcement Description: The Police Department deploys traffic motorcycle officers to perform radar enforcement on residential streets for at least two hours a day. A priority list would be provided to the Police Department each week based on citizen requests. Positive Aspects: • Visible enforcement would reduce speed. • Driver awareness about speeding on residential streets and safety is increased. • Program is flexible and can be tailored to suit the citizens' needs. • Response can be quick and effective. Negative Aspects: • Long -term benefits of speed reduction are unsubstantiated without regular periodic enforcement. i r 3 -2 Narrowing Lanes Description: Striping is used to create narrow 10 feet wide lanes. This gives drivers the feel of a narrow street that does not lend itself to high speeds. The cost vary depending on the length of street, but are not anticipated to exceed $3,000 per mile. Positive Aspects: • Changes can be quickly implemented. • The striping can be easily modified if paint is used. • Speed may decrease and safety is Improved through the provision of positive guidance to drivers. Negative Aspects: • Would increase regular maintenance. • Residents do not always perceive striping is an effective tool for speed reduction. • Cost of resurfacing residential streets will increase. 3 -7 ' Chokers Description: Narrowing of a street at an intersection, mid -block or a segment of a street in order to reduce width of the traveled -way by construction of a wider sidewalk or landscape strip. Positive Aspects: • Slight slowing is normally the result. • Shorter pedestrian crossing distances. and better motorist - pedestrian visibility of each other. • Creates added streetscape area for pedestrians and/or landscaping. • Can discourage truck entry. • Allows signs to be placed closer to driver's cone of vision. Negative Aspects: • Potential obstacle for motorist to run into. • May impede bicycle mobility and safety. • May result in loss of curbside parking. • Can impede legitimate truck movements. • May require reworking of surface drainage. 3 -12 Gateways Description: A special entrance feature, similar to a choker, that narrows a street at the intersection in order to reduce width of the traveled -way. This is not a gate. Chokers are usually located within the block or at intersections. Gateways are considered more dramatic and provide identity to a neighborhood. The exact configuration of the gateway treatment will depend.upon the location of the gateway, i.e., conflicts with driveways. Medians can- also be added to street to slow tuming movements and enhance the street Positive Aspects: • Creates an identity to a neighborhood. • Creates added streetscape area for landscaping or monuments. • Can discourage truck entry. • Allows signs to be placed closer to driver's cone of vision. Negative Aspects: Can impede legitimate truck movements. Increased maintenance costs. 3-13 Neighborhood Roundabout /Traffic Circle Description: A small circular island placed in the center of an existing local street intersection, thus creating a small "roundabout. " Some may also refer to this device as a traffic circle. Positive Aspects: A noticeable reduction in speeds. Reduces accident potential. Under certain conditions capacity can be increased. Can be used Instead of stop signs. Negative Aspects: Required safety signing may detract from its aesthetic quality. Pedestrians and bicyclist must adjust to less traditional crossing patterns. Some parking may be lost on approaches to accommodate vehicles' deflected paths. May increase accidents until drivers become accustomed to change. 3-19 Sneed Humps/Speed Tables Description: Parabolic shaped mounds of paving material. placed across a roadway for. the purpose of causing motorists to reduce their operating speed while driving on the roadway. The length of the hump is generally 12 -feet. Use on roadways with a maximum longitudinal grade of 8 %. For residential collector streets use speed tables instead of speed humps. Speed tables are generally 14 to 20 feet in length and flat topped with standard approach tapers. Positive Aspects: • Reduces speed. • Can cause some traffic to shift to arterial system and no longer cut through the neighborhood. Negative Aspects: • Can cause traffic to shift to parallel residential streets. • Affects emergency response times. • Contents of vehicles can be jarred. • 1wrease in noise adjacent to hump. SPEEg HUMP aki Intersection Channelization Description: T4ntersections are channelized so that vehicles are not traveling in a straight path. This has the effect of slowing vehicles down. Positive Aspects: • Sims vehicle speeds. • No significant impedance of fire and transit. service. Negative Aspects: • Landscaping and signing/striping maintenance will be required. • Loss of on-street parking will occur. . T'--]-.Y- s . t. S I �a 3 -14 f e Neckdowns Description: Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections by widening of street corner to discourage cut through traffic and to help define neighborhoods. Positive Aspects: • May be aesthetically pleasing, if landscaped. • Good for pedestrians due to shorter crossing. • Can be used in multiple application. Negative Aspects: • Increased landscaping maintenance. • Landscaping may cause sight distance problems. 3-16 Turn Restriction Description: Use fixed curbing to prevent vehicles from making certain movement to and out of a local street. The barrier may also placed along the centerline of the major collector street." Cost would average $5.000 - $25,000 depending on the size and aesthetics of the installation. Positive Aspects: Reduces through volume of traffic. Reduces rear -end and left -tum accidents at major or collector street intersection with local streets. Low cost temporary trial installation that can be easily removed or changed. Negative Aspects: Little reduction in traffic speeds. Could ,potentially make it more circuitous for residents to reach their destinations. May divert traffic onto adjacent streets. ,% 3-23 UP T Cul- de-sac Description: Complete closure of a street either at an intersection or at a mid -block location. Positive Aspects: • Very effective at eliminating most of the previously speeding traffic-on the block. • Very effective at reducing volumes. Can be landscaped for an attractive effect to convey street discontinuity. • Mid -block type can be effectively used where abutting land uses change. • Improved traffic safety. Negative Aspects: • Can negatively affect response times for emergency service. • In large neighborhoods, can shift a problem elsewhere unless a strategic pattem of cul-de -sacs are used. • Can generate confusion on the part of users unless signed carefully. • May inconvenience local residents. 3-26 Diagonal Diyerter Description: Barriers between diagonally opposite comers of a 4- legged intersection, thus creating two unconnected L- shaped intersections. Positive Aspects: • Reduces speed. • Can achieve a 20 % -70 % reduction in volumes. • Reduces accident potential by eliminating conflicting traffic movements. Advantage over complete street closure (cul -de -sac) in that it has a lesser impact on circulation, as it actually creates no dead -end streets. Local residents and service vehicles. may view this as a benefit in that their routes can be more direct. Can be attractively landscaped. Negative Aspects: In a large neighborhood, can shift pattern of diverters is used. May inconvenience local residents circuitous paths to&om their homes. i 1 I I 1 3-27 problems elsewhere unless a strategic who are forced to drive longer more Half Closures Description: The street is partially closed to traffic by the construction of a physical barrier at the entrance to the neighborhood to reduce cut through traffic. Positive Aspects: • Reduces cut through traffic. • May reduce traffic speeds. Negative Aspects: • May require additional maintenance. • Could be violated, especially In the late evening. EK&I-0-AL"In 3 -28. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 20 August 10, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL_ FROM: Public Works Department Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director 949 - 644-3311 sbadum@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: City Council Formation of a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee ISSUE: What is the best procedural mechanism to establish a City Council policy to address residential traffic concerns? 1. Adapt Resolution No. 2004 -_ creating a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee to establish a City Council policy addressing residential traffic concerns. 2. Confirm Mayor's appointments of two (2) Council Members to the Committee. 3. As a first committee priority, determine if a speed hump demonstation project on Port Provence is warranted. BACKGROUND: At the July 28, 2004 City Council Study Session, staff presented information regarding neighborhood traffic calming techniques and the increasing number of citizens requesting that the City investigate their concerns of excessive speed and traffic volumes in residential neighborhoods. City Council heard public testimony and several policy issues were discussed including the potential formation of an ad hoc committee to establish City policy. Robert and Susan Caustin presented their proposal for a demonstration project to install speed humps on Port Provence. It was the Council's general concensus that staff should bring these issues to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting for formal action. SUBJECT: Formation of the NeVftrhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee August 10, 2oo4 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Staff recommends that a City Council Neighborhood Traffic Calming policy be created to establish procedures, thresholds, and design criteria for the implementation of traffic calming measures within residential neighborhoods. Additionally, staff recommends that an ad hoc committee be established to evaluate the various traffic calming measures, implementation thresholds, and potential funding programs to craft a City Council policy addressing neighborhood traffic calming. The membership of this ad hoc committee would be composed of two City Council members appointed by the Mayor. Staff support for the Ad Hoc Committee would come from the City Manager, Public Works Director, Traffic Engineer, Fire Chief, and Police Chief. The committee would be charged with developing a draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming policy addressing the following key subjects: Problem, identification and evaluation - How do we determine what is a real problem as a community versus a perceived problem by one or more residents? Is the threshold based upon percentage of drivers exceeding the 852' percentile speed? What will be the evaluation criteria and minimum level of improvement to justify implementation? Do higher volume residential streets get some form of extra consideration? Accidents in residential areas tend to be rare compared to arterial streets and are more likely to go unreported. How should accidents be factored into the evaluation? Policy and process — What traffic calming techniques (speed bumps, roundabouts, mini circles, chokers, diverters, cul -de -sacs) will be supported by the City? How are requests from various neighborhoods to be prioritized? What is the minimum level of neighbor support? Previous use of 60% support was too low, but should it be 75 %, 80%, or even higher? Funding — How will we fund the studies and traffic calming improvements? What level of funding is the City desirous of committing to traffic calming? Will there be an annual program? Will proponents be required to share In the construction and/or maintenance costs? Upon formation of the committee, staff recommends that the first priority should be to determine if the requested speed hump demonstration project on Porf Provence Is warranted. Submitted by: kJ L j/i/ RICS DEPARTMENT Stepef G. Badum, Director Attachments: Resolution No. 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING AD HOC COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP CITY COUNCIL POLICY CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUES WHEREAS, increasing traffic levels and vehicle speeds in residential areas is of great concern to the community; and WHEREAS, in response to concerns from several residential areas, City Council has authorized several studies to be performed analyzing various neighborhoods and anticipates additional requests in the future; and WHEREAS, the City does not have any definitive policy on the Implementation of potential traffic calming measures; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH, that a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee Is established, to be comprised of the following members: Two (2) City Council Members, appointed by the Mayor City Manager Public Works Director Traffic Engineer Fire Chief Police Chief BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the terra of the Steering Committee shall expire on June 30, 2005 unless extended by action of the City Council, or upon successful adoption of a City Council Policy on Neighborhood Traffic Calming. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee shall have as its charge the following oversight responsibilities; 1) To develop criteria to prioritize public requests for traffic calming, 2) To develop residential traffic problem identification and evaluation criteria, 3) To investigate and evaluate potential traffic calming measures, 4) To establish implementation thresholds, 5) To investigate potential funding strategies for neighborhood traffic calming studies and capital projects, 6) To make a recommendation to the City Council to establish a policy for Neighborhood Traffic Calming. ADOPTED on this 10h day of August 2004. J Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2004 =75 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 101h day of August, 2004, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Absent: Heffernan, Adams Abstain; None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 11th day of August, 2004. (Seal) o if City Clerk Newport Beach, California CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session Item No. Ss2 July 27, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Richard Edmonston, P.E. 849- 644 -3311 red mo nsto n@city.newport- beach.ca. us SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES For years Newport Beach, like many other agencies, has been receiving complaints about driver behavior op residential streets. The complaints are mostly related to concern over the speed of traffic and less frequently they also relate to the volume of traffic on a residential street. The frequency of this type of complaint has increased over time to the point that it is one of the most common concems mentioned by those who contact the Traffic Engineering office. This is a widespread concern and professionals all over the world are trying innovative measures to address the issue, but no single solution has been found that would work in most cases. It is important to consider what is causing residents to be upset about driver behavior on their street or in their neighborhood. Complaints fall into two categories — speed and cut- through traffic. Snead concerns - When we measure speeds of vehicles and plot them, they usually follow the familiar bell shape associated with random behavior. Traffic engineers' work is generally based upon the assumption that most motorists drive in a reasonable and prudent fashion. Rules and regulations based upon this assumption tend to work well for the majority of drivers and are largely self enforcing. Based upon the bell curve, the upper limit of reasonableness is considered to be the 851' percentile speed which is the maximum speed that 85 out of 100 drivers would be driving. This also means that 15 percent of the motorists will be driving faster. The 85`" percentile speed is also known as the critical speed. The primary conoem in all neighborhoods is those drivers In the 15 percent that are going faster than the critical speed. Because these motorists are going noticeably faster than the great majority, their behavior stands out and raises the ire of the neighborhood. Anecdotally, while these tend to be younger drivers, speeders can be found in all age categories. Many, many speed studies performed over the years in various neighborhoods In Newport Beach have shown fairly consistent results. The measured critical speeds Date duly IT 2.7 � ` ?age 2 range between 28 and 36 MPH with most critical speeds for newer subdivisions being around 32 or 33 MPH. The variation in speeds strongly correlates with the width of the street. Streets in old Corona del Mar are mostly 30' wide and have critical speeds near 28 MPH while those in a newer area such as Eastbluff are usually 40' wide and have critical speeds around 33 MPH. Because 28 MPH on a narrow street "feels" much the same as 33 MPH on a wider street to the residents, both neighborhoods want drivers to slow down. If we accept the hypothesis that most drivers are reasonable and prudent, we would conclude that the State established speed limit of 25 is unrealistic in residential areas. On the other hand if we want to bring the critical speed closer to 25 MPH, then we must change the driving behavior of many drivers, which is bound to be both difficult and controversial. Cut- throuah traffic Residents consider traffic to be cut - through if the trip doesn't start or end in the immediate neighborhood. This type of complaint is most common in the older, grid style areas such as Corona del Mar and Newport Heights. These streets were originally designed to handle both local and through traffic with multiple, parallel routes available. Certain streets in these neighborhoods became attractive alternate routes to j the parallel arterial roads, generally because of their connectivity to other areas and i streets. If arterial roadways do not have enough capacity to handle the demand with minimal congestion and delay, motorists start seeking alternate routes through the neighborhood. Additionally, many neighborhoods have regional facilities such as parks, schools, churches and community centers within them that draw trips. from outside the immediate neighborhood. Traffic Calmina Until about ten years ago, the City's response to these concerns was generally one of two options: do nothing or install speed bumps. Enforcement was provided on a limited basis, but it is not an effective use. of manpower given that few accidents happen in residential areas compared with the number on the arterial street system. The speed bump option proved to be controversial for a number of reasons. Many homeowners did not want one near their homes because of the noise associated with cars slowing and then accelerating after they crossed the bump. Others were concerned that they would hurt property values. Still others did not want to have to drive over them and be inconvenienced by their presence. On the other hand, they were relatively inexpensive and they were generally effective at lowering speeds. As -the number of speed bumps increased, so did the concern by emergency responders, including our Fire department, that too many of them would seriously impact their response times in emergencies. Research shows that speed humps increase emergency response times between 2 and 10 seconds per speed bump; depending upon their location, configuration, and the type of vehicle that is traveling over them. Fire department vehicles also suffer significant structural stresses when going over speed bumps due to their size and weight. Paramedic ambulances aren't slowed as much as larger equipment when enroute to a medical emergency but they Dale JJ:y -2 .2,104 Page must traverse them when transporting a patient to the emergency room. In the intervening years, new designs.for speed bumps have been developed that address some, but not all, of the concerns by emergency personnel, but none of these newer designs have been installed in Newport Beach. Due to the ongoing interest in getting motorists to drive more slowly in residential areas, many different approaches were explored in the US as well as countries all over the world. This has led to many cities using a more systematic approach which includes a long menu of actions that are known collectively as Traffic Calming. The underlying premise of traffic calming is that drivers will go as fast as they are comfortable with so measures that reduce that comfort level will result in lowered speeds. Motorists typically reduce. their speeds if they need to negotiate a narrower street, traffic circle, or vertical hump or dip. Many of these traffic calming measures have negative aspects such as increased noise, less room for large vehicles, delayed response times for emergency vehicles, and other unwanted side effects including costs associated with installation and increased maintenance. The actions can range from the installation of warning signs to constructing cul-de-sacs to block through traffic. A number of cities have adopted Traffic Calming guidelines for the benefit of residents and staff. The City of Sacramento, for example, has a large program with a dedicated staff of six persons and an annual budget in excess of $500,000 to perform studies and implement Traffic Calming in this city of 450,000 residents. Exhibits 1 and 2 are from the Sacramento guidelines. They list the types of traffic calming measures and where that city considers each to be potentially effective. Newport Beach's experience with traffic calming is limited to early speed bump installations and one more recent installation which paired two speed bumps with a road narrowing. Most articles on traffic calming indicate that the expected speed reduction in the critical speed from speed bumps and narrowings will be around 5 to 7 MPH. We have found reductions of this magnitude on most of our installations. Issues to be addressed Newport Beach is currently budgeting $50,000 per year for this type of effort and these funds have also been used for small traffic safety projects such as restriping, guardrail, and special signing needs. The two neighborhood studies that are presently underway cost in the area of $80,000 each, and the improvements tentatively identified in the Newport Heights/Cliff Haven area would cost several hundred thousand dollars or more. Because the proposed improvements for this neighborhood are center median islands and and /or curb extensions to narrow streets, the total cost of these Improvements will be greatly influenced by the extent to which any of them are to be landscaped. The Newport Hills/Harbor View study has not reached the point of recommending solutions, but an additional $40,000 was added to the budget checklist for this. area. The Council may want to evaluate the level of funding that is available for this type of program and establish guidelines for funding, including resident participation for both installation and maintenance. Several years ago the City developed a Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program with the help of a consultant. That plan was presented to the City Council at a J J:^.JC v�I �•_•.t C-�r v.i- ::11'CS: L EAORjRE j vas ,JY _'. 1131.1-1 nam 4 Study Session, but for a variety of reasons it never was finished and adopted. Staff believes that it would be useful to take another look at this program, perhaps by a committee that would include one or more City Council members. Other members could include the existing Traffic Affairs Committee which has representatives from Police, Public Works, and the City Manager's office. A representative from the Fire Department should also be on the committee to assure that their concerns are included in the considerations. Traffic calming for residential neighborhoods is complicated and often controversial with potentially significant cost implications. Staff looks forward to direction and input from the City Council on the following partial fist of policy issues identified to date: Problem identification and evaluation - How do we determine what is a real problem as a community versus a perceived problem by one or more residents? Is the threshold based upon percentage of drivers exceeding the 85°i percentile speed? Do higher volume residential streets get some form of extra consideration? Accidents in residential areas tend to be rare compared to arterial streets and are more likely to go unreported. How should accidents be factored into the evaluation? Policy and process — What traffic calming techniques (speed bumps, roundabouts, mini circles, chokers, diverters, cut -de- sacs) will be supported by the City? How are requests from various neighborhoods to be prioritized? What is the minimum level of neighbor support? Previous use of 60% support was too low, but should it be 75 %, 80 %, or even higher? Funding — How will we fund the studies and traffic calming improvements? What level of funding is the City desirous of committing to traffic calming? Will .there be an annual program? Will proponents be required to share in the construction and/or maintenance costs? Environmental R ve iew: Not applicable at this time. Prepared by: Submitted by: Richard Edmonston, P.E. p en adum Transportation and Development Public orks Director Services Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 24 June 22, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Richard Edmonston, P.E. 949 - 644 -3311 redmonsto n@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: Approximately thirteen years ago the City Council terminated a road bump program after only one year, during which time a number of concerns with such programs were identified. Since that time the Council has directed staff to not undertake studies to deal with neighborhood traffic concerns without specific direction from the City Council. During that time frame only four such studies have been done, two of which are presently underway. Of the other two, the one dealing with four streets west of Irvine Avenue between Holiday Road and Santiago Drive never reached a consensus on what should be done and who should pay for the improvements. The other study was on Port Seaboume in front of Anderson School and that study resulted in the installation of two roadbumps and a narrowing of the street where the students cross Port Seaboume to and from the area greenbelt. These improvements were funded by the homeowner association. Public Works staff is currently working on two Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) studies. One is in the Newport Heights/Cliff Haven area and the other Is In the Newport Hills/Harbor View area. These two studies were undertaken pursuant to specific City Council direction and separate consulting traffic engineering firms were hired to assist staff. Both NTMP studies are following a similar course which includes three meetings in the neighborhood where issues and potential solutions are identified and discussed. The end product of these studies will be a report containing a series of actions being recommended for City Council consideration. The two studies have some differences in their issues and are on different timelines. The Newport Heights/Cliff Haven study is further along and the final neighborhood meeting was held in late April. A draft of the report is due to be delivered by June I e. SUBJECT: Neighbortood TratficManoement Study Update June 22, 2004 Page 2 This neighborhood is characterized by a grid system of streets which allows for many possible routes of travel and the main concerns are speed of traffic and the amount of traffic cutting through the neighborhood. The consultant has identified over thirty locations where some form of traffic calming is recommended such as mini traffic circles, landscaped medians and road narrowirgs. We do not have the estimates for these improvements yet, but if all of them were to be constnicted, the cost would clearly be several hundred thousand dollars. The second study in the Newport HilWHarbor View area was proposed by staff due to a number of isolated requests and complaints. This area is not a grid system and there Is little attraction for cut through traffic. Concerns identified prior to the first neighborhood meeting, held about a month ago, were intersection sight distance; speeding on both Newport Hills Drive and the "horseshoe" streets; pedestrian safety near the school,. nature park; and sports park; and parking related to neighborhood parks and the sports park. No additional topics of concern were identified during the Initial meeting. It is too early in the course of this study to anticipate the types of Improvements that might be proposed or the estimated costs for any such improvements. The final report for this NTMP is expected around the first of October. Once staff has reviewed the final report for each NTMP, it will be agendized for City Council consideration. At that time the Council will direct staff on which improvements they support, and whether they believe the neighborhood should participate in the. installation and maintenance costs. Subsequently staff will return with a CIP project proposal and budget request. Environmental Review: Not applicable. Prepared by: Richard Edmonston, P.E. Transportation and Development Services Manager Submitted by: Elm., MTV rr