AGENDA #2.3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Forum on Options for Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures
DATE: June 14, 2004
The Town Council called tonight’s Public Forum to receive public comment on options for Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
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. Attachment 1 includes examples of typical traffic calming devices. The Town has implemented various traffic calming measures in seven neighborhoods over the past three years.
The Town Council held a work session on November 24, 2003, and discussed several alternatives that were presented by the staff for Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures. The alternatives presented were:
(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, evaluating, 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 Council stated its preference for establishing policy and procedures for receiving, evaluating, prioritizing and funding traffic calming requests without assessment of costs to property owners. A copy of the November 24 work session minutes are provided in Attachment 2.
Attachment 3 is a copy of the November 24, 2003 report. The report can also be found on the Town’s web site at www.townofchapelhill.org.
The Council subsequently referred the report to the Town’s Transportation Board for review and recommendations prior to scheduling further Council consideration of this matter. Attachment 4 is a copy of the Transportation Board’s recommendations.
At its May 10, 2004 meeting, the Council scheduled a public forum to receive comments on the draft options for Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
Public Notice
The Town advertised tonight’s forum in the Chapel Hill News on Sunday, June 6, 2004, and Wednesday, June 9, 2004. We also mailed the report to the residents who petitioned for traffic calming devices. The report can be found on the Town’s web site at www.townofchapelhill.org.
DISCUSSION
POLICY AND PROCEDURE OPTIONS
Based on comments from the Council and the Transportation Board, we have drafted two traffic calming policy and procedure options for the Council’s consideration. Neither option includes assessments to property owners, and both are identical with the exception of the petition versus neighborhood survey steps.
The draft options are presented in Attachment 5 and Attachment 6.
Key points of the draft traffic calming policy and procedure options are:
1) Service Area: The Engineering Department would designate a “service area” (area of influence) surrounding the requested traffic calming project site(s), and would provide the citizen submitting the request 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 could 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 Transportation Board consider appeals from citizens regarding service area boundaries. The Board may agree with staff or may recommend a different service area. If Town staff disagrees with changes recommended by the Transportation Board, the matter would be brought to the Council for a final decision.
2) 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 used by the Town to rank sidewalk and bicycle improvement projects.
The Transportation Board discussed the proposed ranking system and recommended one additional point category involving assignment of points for the length of time that a petition has been on the list without being implemented. We have revised the proposed ranking system to include this change recommended by the Transportation Board.
3) Annual Report: In the fall of each year, the Town Manager would present a report for the Council’s consideration 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 project,
· The Town Transportation Board’s recommendation regarding each project, and
· The Town Manager’s recommendation regarding each project.
We would expect to submit the traffic calming project report and recommendations concurrently with the annual sidewalk and bicycle project report and recommendations.
4) Project Construction: Once project funding is approved by the Council, the Engineering Department would prepare construction plans and specifications and an updated cost estimate. When the final project drawings are complete, the Engineering Department would schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss the plans, estimated costs, and construction procedures/schedule. Each property owner in the service area of the project would be notified when and where the meeting is scheduled. The project would be constructed by Town forces or by private contractor.
5) 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. Citizen requests for removal of traffic calming devices would be required to follow the same procedure as the initial request for installation of the devices.
KEY ISSUES FROM THE NOVEMBER 24, 2003 COUNCIL WORK SESSION
1) Revise the ranking system to include points for how long a neighborhood has been on the priority list: A Council member suggested assigning points for how long a neighborhood has been in the priority list.
Comment: We agree and have revised the ranking system to include this suggestion.
2) Better define the service area: Several Council members expressed concerns that defining a “service area” could be challenging for the staff, and that neighborhoods might disagree with the boundaries.
Comment: We agree that defining the service area could be challenging in some cases. Town staff has expertise in evaluating the effects of traffic calming measures, and would do its best to be professional, reasonable and consistent in defining service areas. We believe that defining a service area is critical to the success of a traffic calming program. Defined service areas would enable us to consistently notify and receive input from residents who we believe would be most affected by proposed traffic calming measures.
We recommend that the Transportation Board consider appeals from citizens regarding service area boundaries established by Town staff. The Board could recommend adjustment of the service area boundaries based on its evaluation of information provided by Town staff and residents. The Town Council would make the final decisions on service area boundaries when differences are not resolved by the staff and Board.
3) Consider neighborhood surveys versus petition by 2/3 majority of neighbors: Several Council members expressed concern that requiring residents to assemble a 2/3 majority petition would be burdensome, and suggested that, in lieu of the petition, Town staff distribute a neighborhood survey within the service area after receiving a request for traffic calming devices. A Council member also noted that well-organized neighborhoods, particularly those with homeowners associations, would be better able to assemble a 2/3 petition than other neighborhoods or unorganized residential areas of the Town.
Comment: At the November 24, 2003 Council work session, Town staff proposed that a petition would have to be signed by 2/3’s of the property owners within the service area in order to be considered valid. We continue to recommend the 2/3’s requirement for petition signatures because we believe that it would clearly demonstrate, at an early stage in the process, strong neighborhood interest in and concurrence with a traffic calming project in their area.
We believe having this requirement early in the overall process would help reduce conflicts that might occur within and between neighborhoods, such as those we experienced with the Lonebrook Drive and North Lakeshore Drive traffic calming projects. Option #1 includes the 2/3’s petition process. (Please refer to Attachment 5 for details of Option #1.)
If the Council prefers using neighborhood surveys rather than petitions, Option #2 would replace the petition process with a neighborhood survey process. (Please refer to Attachment 6 for details of Option #2.)
Under the Option #2 procedure, after receiving a request for traffic calming measures, Town staff would determine the service area and a survey form would be prepared and sent to all residents in the service area. The survey would explain that the Town had received a request for traffic calming in the area, and would request an indication of whether or not the resident was interested in pursuing a traffic calming project.
In order to move ahead with the process under Option #2, a minimum of 2/3’s of the surveys would have to be returned and a minimum of 60% of the returned surveys would have to express support for installation of some type of traffic calming measures within the service area. Meeting these minimum requirements would signify approximately 40% overall support from residents within the service area.
If these requirements were met, Town staff would develop a proposed traffic calming plan, and include the plan with a second survey form to be mailed to the same addresses as the first survey. We again recommend that a minimum of 2/3’s of the surveys be returned and that the returned surveys include a minimum of 60% support for the proposed traffic calming plan, or identified parts of the proposed plan, in order for the project to be included on the Town’s list for consideration along with other projects in the community.
We believe that the process described in Option #2 would increase Town staff work significantly as a result of preparing and distributing multiple survey forms, responding to residents’ questions about the surveys, and meeting with neighborhood groups. We are concerned that the existing traffic engineering staff would be unable to manage this type of traffic calming process in addition to existing traffic engineering responsibilities.
To properly manage the Option #2 process, we think it would be necessary to hire an additional technician position in the Engineering Department with primary responsibility for administering traffic calming policy and procedures Town-wide and for developing and managing construction of traffic calming projects approved by the Council. Cost of such a position would be approximately $50,000 annually.
If the Council wishes to proceed with the Option #2 process, we recommend that it refer the matter to the Manager for an evaluation of resource needs and associated costs, and for recommendations on proceeding with implementation.
4) Consider re-evaluating the project priority list twice a year versus once a year: Council members expressed concern about delay in the process if the Town-wide traffic calming project list was submitted to the Council on an annual basis. They requested that the staff consider submitting the list on a semi-annual basis.
Comment: We believe that a semi-annual report process would significantly increase the staff workload and would not allow sufficient time for thorough planning and analysis of all traffic calming requests. We continue to recommend that the Council receive the traffic calming project report once a year concurrently with the annual sidewalk and bicycle project report.
5) Consider hiring a consultant for developing traffic calming plans to offset increased work load on Town staff: A Council member expressed concern that the proposed policy and the pending number of petitions would increase the staff workload significantly and suggested that the Town explore the idea of hiring a consultant to help the staff with the traffic calming program.
Comment: We agree that adoption of either of the policy options would increase the workload for Engineering Department staff.
The budget under consideration by the Council tonight includes a reorganization of the Public Works and Engineering Departments that would create a new staff engineer position in the Engineering Department. This position would be funded by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The staff engineer would concentrate on traffic signal operations, thus allowing the existing Town Traffic Engineer to spend more time working with traffic calming matters.
The Option #1 traffic calming policy and procedure places most of the administrative work and neighborhood contact activities on the residents in the service area as part of the petition process. If this option is approved and implemented by the Council, we believe that existing Town staff (with the additional engineer noted previously) could provide a reasonable level of service for the program.
We would monitor the workload and applied resources and provide an update to the Council along with the annual traffic calming program status report and review of the outstanding traffic calming project list. We would make recommendations to the Council regarding additional resources, if necessary, based on the workload.
If the Council approves the Option #2 policy and procedures, we believe that an additional full-time technician would be necessary as noted in our previous comment.
Because much of the work associated with Option #2 would involve one-on-one meetings and discussions with residents, and numerous neighborhood meetings, we do not think that an outside consultant could provide the level of service necessary to be effective and responsive to the expectations of the community.
PENDING TRAFFIC CALMING PETITIONS
Currently, we have 21 petitions for traffic calming measures that are pending further action by Town staff or the Council. We have completed traffic studies and have developed preliminary plans for several of these petitions, but they have been held until the Council decides on a policy and procedures for traffic calming Town-wide. If the Council establishes a traffic calming policy, we suggest that the existing projects on the list be re-evaluated to the extent practicable using the procedures associated with that policy.
TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT FUNDING
Recently approved Sidewalk and Street Improvements Bonds include $650,000 for traffic calming measures and pedestrian/bicycle safety improvements. The Council plans to issue $300,000 of bonds in 2004-05 that could be used for traffic calming, and pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements.
EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
At a recent Council meeting, during discussion of the traffic calming plan previously approved for Lonebrook Drive, a citizen stated that traffic calming devices such as speed humps have not proven to be effective and are no longer being installed in some American communities including Portland, Oregon and Boulder, Colorado.
Town staff has contacted Portland and Boulder, and found that both cities have installed and continue to install traffic calming devices such as speed humps and traffic circles on public streets in residential neighborhoods. We were advised that traffic calming installations are sometimes delayed due to lack of funding, but that both cities have found typical traffic calming devices to be effective in reducing vehicular speeds and volumes on residential streets.
CONCLUSION
The policy and procedures presented in Option #1 are a synthesis of Town staff experience with traffic calming requests in Chapel Hill and policies/procedures being utilized in other North Carolina communities.
We think that the proposed Option #1 policy would provide a reasonable and equitable means for prioritizing traffic calming projects based on evaluation of comparable merit. We also believe that the 2/3’s majority support by residents within the service area, as designated by signatures on a formal petition, could decrease the potential for discord among residents and/or neighborhood groups within the service area.
Petitions for stop signs, speed limits, and parking restrictions would continue to be received by the Council and referred to the Manager for review and recommendations. Routine requests (e.g. requests for stop sign installations, parking restrictions, etc.) could continue to 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 adopted traffic calming policy and procedures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board preferred Option#2 that would establish a formal traffic calming policy and procedures using a neighborhood survey process for receiving, evaluating, prioritizing traffic calming requests, without assessment of costs to property owners. The Board provided the following recommendations:
(1) That the petition process be revised so as to minimize the initial dedication of staff resources to projects which do not have a reasonable level of neighborhood support by including a step which utilizes a preliminary questionnaire of the neighborhood. The questionnaire of the neighborhood should include all of the residents. The requirement for initiating a staff review of the project should include that the above-mentioned questionnaire have a 40 percent return rate and a 50% project approval.
Staff Comment: We do not believe that the Board’s recommendation would reduce the staff time necessary to deal with traffic calming requests under Option #2. Also, meeting these minimum requirements would signify only approximately 20% overall support from residents within the service area.
If the Council wishes to consider the use of Town-initiated neighborhood questionnaires (surveys) rather than resident-initiated petitions, we suggest that it consider the procedures described previously in Option #2.
(2) That, in addition to responses to citizen requests, traffic calming projects also be generated (identified) by advisory boards, staff and the Town Council.
Staff Comment: We agree with the Board and we have included language to this effect in the draft policy associated with both program options.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Council refer comments from tonight’s forum to the Manager and Attorney for preparation of a report and recommendations to be presented at the Council’s June 30, 2004 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Examples of Traffic Calming Devices (p. 9).
2. Minutes of November 24, 2003 Work Session (p. 15).
3. November 24, 2003 Work Session Report (p. 20).
4. Summary of the Transportation Board Recommendation (p. 39).
5. Option #1: Draft Policy and Procedures for Traffic Calming Measures with Petition Process (p. 40).
6. Option #2: Draft Policy and Procedures for Traffic Calming Measures with Survey Process (p. 48).