AGENDA #1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Draft Options for Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures
DATE: November 24, 2003
This report discusses options for Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures. Options presented for the Council’s consideration are: (1) continue the current process of dealing with traffic calming requests on a first come-first served basis when each request is received; (2) establish formal policy and procedures for receiving, prioritizing, and funding traffic calming requests; and (3) include a mechanism in the policy and procedures to allow assessment of some or all of the costs of traffic calming projects to benefited properties.
The Manager recommends that the Council refer this report and attachments to the Town’s Transportation Board for review and recommendations prior to scheduling Council action on this matter.
At its June 9, 2003 meeting, the Council directed the Manager to schedule a work session in the fall of the year to discuss adoption of formal policy and procedures for neighborhood traffic calming.
The Town regularly receives requests for various means and methods to manage traffic in and around neighborhoods. We receive both non-specific requests for help as well as specific requests for traffic control measures, including but not limited to stop signs, informational signs, striping, raised islands/medians, roundabouts, rumble strips, speed humps/tables, textured crosswalks, etc.
The Town has implemented traffic calming measures in seven neighborhoods over the past three years. We currently have sixteen requests pending, and they are listed in Attachment #3.
DISCUSSION
We have developed the following draft options for the Council’s consideration:
Option 1, Continue Existing Process:
The Town currently operates informally with regard to receiving, prioritizing, and funding requests for traffic calming on local streets in Chapel Hill. The Council could choose to continue with this informal process rather than establishing a formal policy and set of procedures for dealing with requests for traffic calming. Under this option, the Council would receive and refer traffic calming petitions to the Town Manager. Pertinent data would be collected and analyzed by the Engineering Department, and the Manager would present recommendations including cost estimates for the Council’s consideration. Subject to funding availability, traffic calming projects would be implemented upon approval by the Council.
Option #1 Advantages:
1. Process is relatively quick and uncomplicated.
2. Process is adequate if only one or two requests are considered each year.
3. Process does not require extensive staff time and/or involvement.
Option #1 Disadvantages:
1. Projects may proceed without the support of a majority of affected property owners.
2. The comparative merit of projects is not evaluated.
3. Budget planning is difficult.
Option 2, Establish Formal Policy and Procedures for Traffic Calming:
An alternative to the current process would be to establish formal traffic calming policy and procedures. Attachment #1 is a draft of this option. It is a synthesis of Town staff experience with traffic calming requests in Chapel Hill and existing policies and procedures being utilized in other North Carolina communities.
Petitions for stop signs, speed limits, and parking restrictions would still be received by the Council and referred to the Manager for review and recommendations. Routine requests (e.g. requests for a stop sign installations, parking restrictions, etc.) could be handled directly by the Council based on the Manager’s recommendation(s). The Manager would recommend that more complex requests be processed in accordance with the adopted traffic calming policy and procedures.
Key points in this draft policy and procedures option are outlined below:
1) Petition Process: A petition for traffic calming on a Town-maintained street would have to be signed by the owners of 2/3’s of the property parcels within the “service area” surrounding the traffic calming project site(s).
Because our experience suggests that the installation of traffic calming measures in a neighborhood is usually more controversial than street paving, we believe that a 2/3’s majority is necessary to demonstrate strong neighborhood support, rather than the simple majority that the Town typically requires for consideration of paving petitions.
2) Service Area: The Engineering Department would designate a “service area” surrounding the requested traffic calming project site(s), and would provide the requester with petition forms to be signed by interested property owners within the service area. The size and extent of the service area would be based upon the type of traffic calming project being proposed, the layout and type of properties in the vicinity, and the characteristics of the street network surrounding the proposed project site(s). Depending on the circumstances, the service area may include:
· All properties abutting the proposed street segment to be modified.
· All properties on adjacent street(s) with ingress/egress only possible via the modified street segment.
· All properties on adjacent street(s) that have alternative points of ingress/egress but are expected to be otherwise affected by the modified street segment.
Defining the service area for traffic calming projects would be challenging. Town staff would do its best to be professional, reasonable and consistent in defining service areas. However, property owners in the vicinity of proposed traffic calming projects could come to different conclusions about the boundaries of the service areas, and Town staff determinations could be challenged. We suggest that the Town Transportation Board consider appeals from citizens regarding the service area boundaries. The Board could adjust service area boundaries as it deems appropriate.
3) Traffic Calming Plans: Town Engineering staff would develop traffic calming plans in conjunction with input from neighborhood meetings. The plans would be developed with consideration of:
· Town Policy for the Placement of Stop Signs and Assignment of Speed Limits (Adopted by the Town Council 04/24/89)
· The characteristics of the neighborhood and street system
· The types of traffic calming measures that would be most effective in addressing identified traffic problem(s)
· Accepted design criteria and public safety issues
Please refer to Appendix A and B of the attached draft policy and procedure documents for further details.
4) Ranking System: Traffic calming projects would be prioritized using a ranking system described in Appendix C of the attached draft policy and procedure documents. This procedure for establishing project priorities would be similar to the process presently used by the Town to rank sidewalk and bicycle improvement projects. An annual prioritized project list, including plans and costs estimates, would be presented to the Transportation Board for consideration and recommendations. The Board’s recommendations would be included with the Town Manager’s annual report to the Town Council in which traffic management projects would be recommended, subject to the level of funding approved by the Council for the coming year.
5) Annual Report: In the fall of each year, the Town Manager would present for the Council’s consideration an annual traffic calming report including:
· A prioritized list of traffic calming projects for which a valid petition was received
· A copy of each petition
· A summary of the data pertaining to each petition.
· The Town Transportation Board’s recommendation
· The Town Manager’s recommendation
We would expect to submit the traffic calming project report and recommendations concurrently with the annual sidewalk and bicycle project report and recommendations.
6) Funding Considerations: Each year the Council would determine the level of funding to be assigned to construction of traffic calming projects during the subsequent fiscal year. Prioritized traffic calming projects would be selected subject to the available funding. This funding process would be similar to the process currently used by the Town for sidewalk and bicycle improvement projects.
7) Neighborhood Meetings: When traffic calming projects are approved and funded, Engineering Department staff would schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss the plans, estimated costs, procedures, schedule, etc. Each property owner in the service area would be notified of the meeting.
8) Monitoring and Follow-up Studies: Town staff would monitor the performance of completed traffic management projects, and would report to the Council and Transportation Board regarding the operation and effectiveness of the traffic calming measures within 12-18 months following installation. This follow-up report could result in Council action to revise or remove a previously approved traffic management measure.
Option #2 Advantages:
1. Assures that all traffic calming requests would be consistently processed with uniform standards and requirements.
2. Provides a reasonable and equitable means of prioritizing traffic calming projects based on evaluation of comparable merit.
3. Majority support is required, thus decreasing the potential for discord among property owners in the service area.
4. Transportation Board would review and provide recommendations for all traffic calming projects under consideration.
5. Budget planning would be facilitated by having projects identified and prioritized on an annual basis (similar to sidewalk and bicycle improvement projects).
Option #2 Disadvantages:
1. Process is relatively complicated and time consuming for both petitioner(s) and Town staff.
2. Some of the traffic calming petitions would receive low priority rankings and might never reach a priority level for funding because higher ranked projects continue to be submitted.
3. Service Area boundary may be challenged.
Option #3, Assess Traffic Calming Project Costs to Property Owners:
A variant of Option #2 would involve assessing property owners within the service area for all or a portion of the cost for installing traffic calming devices. The draft policy and procedures outlined in Option #2 above would remain basically the same, with the inclusion of necessary procedural steps prescribed by State statute for assessing project costs to property owners.
Based on the Town Attorney’s guidance and the existing Town policy for “street paving by petition”, if the Council wishes to consider assessing property owners for traffic calming projects we would suggest using procedures similar to those used for petition paving projects. The following language is included in General Statute 160A-218 regarding assessments for street improvements:“(1) The frontage abutting on the project, at an equal rate per foot of frontage; or (2) The area of land served, or subject to being served, by the project, at an equal rate per unit of area; or (3) The value added to the land served by the project, or subject to being served by it, being the difference between the appraised value of the land without improvements as shown on the tax records of the county, and the appraised value of the land with improvements according to the appraisal standards and rules adopted by the county at its last revaluation, at an equal rate per dollar of value added; or (4) The number of lots served, or subject to being served, where the project involves extension of an existing system to a residential or commercial subdivision, at an equal rate per lot; or (5) A combination of two or more of these bases. Whenever the basis selected for assessment is either area or value added, the council may provide for the laying out of benefit zones according to the distance of benefited property from the project being undertaken, and may establish differing rates of assessment to apply uniformly throughout each benefit zone. For each project, the council shall endeavor to establish an assessment method from among the bases set out in this section which will most accurately assess each lot or parcel of land according to the benefit conferred upon it by the project. The council's decision as to the method of assessment shall be final and conclusive and not subject to further review or challenge.” We suggest that the assessment basis for traffic calming projects would be: “The area of land served, or subject to being served, by the project, at an equal rate per benefited property”. Following the petition paving model, we also would suggest that the Town share in the costs of traffic calming projects on a 50/50 basis with benefited property owners. Thus, the Town would implement approved traffic calming projects and would pay 50% of the total project costs. Property owners in the service area would be assessed on an equal share per benefited property basis for the other 50% of the project costs. The owners of assessed property would have the option of paying the assessment either in a single payment or in not more than 10 annual installments. Option #3 Advantages:1. Allows the Town to recoup some or all of costs for implementing traffic calming projects.
2. Offers neighborhoods a sense of “ownership” in the improvements.
Option #3 Disadvantages:1. Process is very complicated and time consuming for both petitioner(s) and Town staff.
2. Administrative costs could be significant.
3. Difficulties could arise if the Council found it necessary to remove traffic calming measures for which property owners were assessed all or part of the associated costs.
Because of the cost and time associated with the assessment process, we do not think that it would be practical to assess costs for typical traffic calming projects valued at less than $25,000. However, for complex and/or extensive projects involving costs in excess of $25,000, the Council could consider assessing a portion of those costs to benefited property owners. The Council may wish to have the assessment option available for a typical traffic calming project. PENDING TRAFFIC CALMING PETITIONS
Attachment #3 is a spreadsheet that lists pending traffic calming petitions and presents the status of each potential project. We have completed traffic studies and have developed preliminary plans for several of the petitions. We expect to perform traffic studies for the remaining project sites within the next 3-4 months.
We suggest that these, and other petitions that we might receive in the interim, remain in “pending’ status until such time that the Council decides on the traffic calming policy and procedures it wishes to adopt.
PROJECT FUNDING
The recently approved Sidewalk and Street Improvements Bonds include $650,000 for traffic calming measures and pedestrian/bicycle safety improvements. Funds for future traffic calming projects can be assigned at the discretion of the Council.
CONCLUSION
We welcome the Council’s review and comment on the options provided for consideration in this report.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
That the Council refer this report and attachments to the Transportation Board for review and recommendations prior to scheduling Council action on this matter.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Policy and Procedures for Traffic Calming Measures without Assessment (p. 7).
2. Draft Policy and Procedures for Traffic Calming Measures with Assessment (p. 15).
3. Status of Pending Traffic Calming Petitions (p. 19).