City Council Meeting May 23, 2011

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
McKenna Boulevard Traffic Management Meeting Presented to: McKenna Blvd. Residents W. Madison Police Precinct, Madison June 13, 2007.
Advertisements

Traffic Calming Program Goals Traffic Calming Manual approved by City Commission on June 25, 2002 Reduce speed on residential streets Cut-through traffic.
Residential Development in Rural Lands Study STEERING COMMITTEE 7 February 15, 2006.
DESCRIPTIONDESCRIPTION PROCEDURESPROCEDURES CUT- THROUGH RESTRICTION TRAFFIC- CALMING $200 FINE FOR SPEEDING SIGNS MULTI-WAY STOP (“MWS”) SIGNS THROUGH.
Background Why Plan For Transportation? Facts You Should Know Expectations Projects and Costs Conclusions/ Next Steps.
Board of County Commissioners November 8, Recommendation Project Background and Location Traffic Analysis Comparison of Alternatives Public Meeting.
Department of Transportation NTMP 2.0 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program TAC Meeting December 11, 2009.
Functional Classification Maranda Obray, Transportation Planner Idaho Transportation Department.
Bus Rapid Transit: Chicago’s New Route to Opportunity Josh Ellis, BRT Project Manager Metropolitan Planning Council.
HRB Meeting June 9, 2015 City Council Remand of AP 14-02/ZC
Navigating SB 375: CEQA Streamlining and SB 743 Transportation Analysis 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference.
City Manager’s Office Approval of Public Monument Policy City Council August 31, 2015 Item 20.
Broadview Second Access. Parlette Annexation What has changed? Parlette has asked for reconsideration –Recitals in agreement are not operative provisions.
Transit Partnerships. Goal of Presentation Review the Transit Partnership Proposal Seek Ordinance Approval: –Authorizing the Mayor to submit Transit Partnership.
Introduction Session 01 Matakuliah: S0753 – Teknik Jalan Raya Tahun: 2009.
Things to consider for regional planning…. Corridor Preservation Corridor preservation is a strategy to assure that the network of highways, roads, and.
Design Criteria CTC 440. Objectives Know what “design criteria” means Determine design criteria for various types of facilities.
Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Level of Service in Transit Oriented Districts Service for Who?
Traffic Engineering Survey City of Rancho Palos Verdes DISTANCE ALIGNMENT PARKING RESTRICTIONS STREET WIDTH NO. OF LANES AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS (SW, C.
What is a TSP? Provides City with guidance for operating and improving a multimodal transportation system Focuses on priority projects, policies, and programs.
What is a TSP? Provides City with guidance for operating and improving a multimodal transportation system Focuses on priority projects, policies, and programs.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Background The NTMP program was develop to promote and maintain the safety and livability of local residential.
1/23/20161 Traffic Calming Devices Workshop Prepared by City Engineering Department.
Downtown Development Review The Review Process and Preserving Downtown Character.
Connecting South Dakota and the Nation Access Management Training Brooke White, Access Management Engineer.
Airdrie Land Use Bylaw Presentation to City Council May 2, 2016.
4650 Alhambra Circle Building Site Separation. Request: The applicant is requesting consideration of a building site separation in accordance with Section.
CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 18, 2011 Central Park Gazebo Replacement.
Pedestrian Master Plan Update Seattle Planning Commission Michelle Marx, Ian Macek, Kevin O’Neill May 26, 2016.
Planning & Community Development Department General Plan Implementation Strategy City Council February 29, 2016.
Induced Travel: Definition, Forecasting Process, and A Case Study in the Metropolitan Washington Region A Briefing Paper for the National Capital Region.
Zoning Code Amendment: Neighborhood District Overlay Zone
City of Charlottesville
Chelan County Transportation Element Update
Urban Street Design Standards Overview of Project and Details
Authorization to Enter Into Contract with Four Consultants for General Plan Implementation Services City Council February 6, 2017.
32 Transportation Midway City 2016 General Plan
CONTRACT AWARD TO ALTA PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO CONDUCT SAFETY OUTREACH AND UPDATE THE SUGGESTED ROUTES TO SCHOOL MAPS FOR THE SAFER.
Finance Committee & City Council October 10, 2016
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ARTICLE 10 (VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) OF THE PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE City Council January 23, 2017.
Briefing Outline History of Master Plan of Highways & Transitways
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2017 AMENDMENT PROCESS and DOCKET
Project Management Team Meeting #3
MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND STREET DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
LEE FARM ADDITION – GDP AMENDMENT
Zoning Code Amendment: SL (Single-Level) Overlay District
Gateway Specific Plan Concepts
Request #2 Request #1 Segment built by LCPS.
PROJECT LOCATION Project begins at Garden Lane (East of I-4)
Adoption of the FY Capital Improvement Program Budget & Amendments to FY 17 CIP May 8, 2017.
Finance Committee & City Council August 8, 2016
Updates to the Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvements Fee (TR/TIF) City Council July 24, 2017.
Appeal: Time Extension for Variance # East Walnut Street
Update on Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan
RPPP Policy and Procedures Update
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN : Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy Staff Introduction.
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN : Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
Get Connected: How to Measure Connectivity in your Community
Design Criteria CTC 440.
City Council Meeting July 23, 2018
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Greenbrook Drive South
Route 7 Setbacks and Buffer Standards
WWPNA General Member Meeting October 16, 2018
M14A/D Select Bus Service
MPO Board Presentation
Adopt a Resolution of the City of Pasadena Approving the Submittal of a Functional Classification Change for Local Streets and Roads to the State of California.
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN : Transfers for new entrants
Example of cones and signs as traffic control at a roadway incident.
Rural Transit Stop Design Guidelines Prof Omer maaitah
Contract Award for the Colorado Street Bridge Suicide Mitigation Enhancements Project City Council May 20, 2019 Item # 7.
Presentation transcript:

City Council Meeting May 23, 2011 Recommended Revisions to the Current Speed Hump Policies and Procedures City Council Meeting May 23, 2011

Speed Hump Policy & Procedures Brief history of the City’s Speed Hump Policies Three qualification issues raised by City Council: Length Volume Street Classification Effects of Policy Change

History of Speed Humps The City of Pasadena considered speed humps in the early 1980’s A comprehensive study of the devices determined that they were appropriate for reducing traffic speed on certain streets when properly installed. The city developed policies and procedures for the installation of speed humps based on proper engineering designs, standard guidelines, and practice of communities in California. The policies and procedures were adopted by City Council in 1984.

1984 Speed Hump Policy Policies & Procedures adopted in 1984 Volume Lower limit: 1,000 vehicles per day Upper limit: 3,000 vehicles per day Length no speed humps on cul-de-sacs less than 800 feet Classification Local residential streets Vote 65% or more of abutting residents

2004 Speed Hump Policy Policies & Procedures amended in 2004 Volume Lower limit: 1,000 vehicles per day Upper limit: 4,000 vehicles per day Length Lower limit: 1,200 feet Classification Local residential streets Vote 67% or more of abutting residents

Three qualification issues Segment Length Traffic Volume Street Classification

Segment Length

Segment Length In 2004, the segment minimum length criteria was modified to 1,200 feet Speed humps to be installed on at least two blocks Speed humps should not be installed in isolated blocks along a continuous street Distance is consistent with the criteria in the City’s Residential Stop Sign Policy

Segment Length 2011 ITE Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps and Speed Tables: Spacing 200 feet from stop sign 260 feet apart generally will result in an 85th-percentile operating speed of 25 mph on a street segment Spacing guidelines results in two speed humps on a block that is nominally 600 ft long

Layout of Typical Speed Humps 250’ 260’ 250’ STOP STOP STOP STOP 80’ 170’ 260’ 170’ 80’ 600’ NOT TO SCALE

Recommendation: Minimum Segment Length Staff recommends revising the minimum segment length from 1,200 feet to 600 feet. Close gaps along local street corridors that do not have speed humps. These street segments are shorter than 1,200 feet but have documented speeding issues. Most residential blocks within the city are approximately 600 feet or longer. Installation still subject to satisfying other criteria

Traffic Volume Thresholds

Traffic Volume In 2004, the traffic volume upper limit was changed from 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day 3,000 vpd was based on previous ITE guidelines TAC’s recommended increasing the higher volume threshold to account for nominal growth in traffic volumes as a result of regional growth trends. The lower volume threshold was maintained at 1,000 vehicles per day Limit application of speed humps to streets that are impacted by traffic volumes beyond what might be expected to be generated by the residents on a local street.

Recommendation: Traffic Volume Thresholds Staff recommends maintaining current volume thresholds Consistent with engineering practices of surrounding communities Consistent with current Mobility Element of General Plan Revisit when Mobility Element Update is adopted

Street Classification

Street Classification Speed humps are only considered for installation on streets classified as Local residential in the City’s General Plan. The City’s primary emergency response routes focus on Collectors and Arterials Inter-neighborhood and citywide connectivity is accomplished on Collectors and Arterials Certain streets in the city mirror the design of a Local residential streets but are classified as Collectors or Arterials

Context-Based Street Classification System Under current update of General Plan Mobility Element there is alternate system of street classification that is based on both context and function. Alternate system better reflects the varying nature of Collector streets and differentiates Collectors that are similar to Locals from those that are more regional in function/context Under the proposed Context-Based Street Classification System, streets classified as Connector-Neighborhood and below would be suitable for consideration for speed humps if other criteria are met.

Recommendation: Street Classification Absent a change in the street classification policy, staff recommends retaining the restrictions of speed humps on arterial and collector streets. Staff recommends revisiting the street classification criteria for speed humps should the proposed street classification system be adopted as part of the Mobility Element Update

Effects of Policy Change Cost Impact Analysis Each speed hump costs approximately $2,000 to install. Maintenance to restripe costs approximately $200 per speed hump. City installs approximately 10 speed humps per year. Staff anticipates an increase in the amount of speed hump installations per year if minimum segment length criterion is lowered to 600 feet

Effects of Policy Change More street segments will qualify; however these streets will still need to meet the other criteria and 67% of abutting residents must be in favor of the installation Currently, all speed hump installations are funded through the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) in the Capital Improvement Program (Project 75903). Any increase in the number of speed hump installations would have a negative fiscal impact on funds available to implement other NTMP projects.

Questions or Comments?