AGENDA #4f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up Report in Response to a Petition Requesting Removal of Traffic Calming Devices on Lonebrook Drive
DATE: November 8, 2004
This is a follow-up report in response to a petition from Mr. Eric Plow requesting: (1) that the Town remove stop signs that were installed last year on Lonebrook Drive at its intersection with Tremont Circle and; (2) that the Town not install one of three speed humps that were previously approved for installation on Lonebrook Drive. The stop signs and speed hump referred to by the petitioner are included in a traffic calming plan approved by the Council in January 2003. Attachment 1 is a map of the area in question with the approved and installed traffic calming devices on Lonebrook Drive.
This report also provides information regarding the cost and effectiveness of portable speed humps, as requested by the Council.
The Manager recommends that the Council adopt Resolution A that would allow the installed stop signs to remain and defer installation of the previously approved speed humps on Lonebrook Drive until such time that the neighborhood submits a valid petition requesting the installation of traffic calming devices in accordance with the Council adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
Alternatively, the Council could adopt Resolution B and enact Ordinance A that would remove the installed stop signs on Lonebrook Drive and defer installation of the previously approved speed humps on Lonebrook Drive until such time that the neighborhood submits a valid petition requesting the installation of traffic calming devices in accordance with the Council adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
At its January 27, 2003, meeting, the Council approved installation of the following traffic calming devices on Lonebrook Drive, as shown on the attached map (Attachment 1):
· Three speed humps
· Stop signs at the Tremont Circle and Glenmore Road intersections
The stop signs were installed in April 2003, and the speed humps were scheduled for installation during the summer of 2003.
In April 2003, the Council received and referred a petition from Mr. Eric Plow, a Northwoods V resident, requesting removal of the recently installed stop signs on Lonebrook Drive at Tremont Circle and that the northernmost speed hump not be installed on Lonebrook Drive. At its June 9, 2003 meeting, the Council received a staff report in response to Mr. Plow’s petition. The Council deferred action on the petition, and directed the Manager to delay the installation of speed humps on Lonebrook Drive, to study the effects of the stop signs alone, and to report back with recommendations on the petitioner’s requests.
At its April 26, 2004 meeting, the Council received a staff report with the results of the follow-up speed study. In the report, the Manager recommended that the stop signs remain in place and that three speed humps be installed on Lonebrook Drive in accordance with the approved traffic calming plan. Please see Attachment 2 for a copy of the April 26, 2004, Council report.
The Council again deferred the action on the petitioner’s request until a policy for traffic calming measures was adopted, and directed the Manager to bring this matter back to the Council along with a report on cost and effectiveness of temporary speed humps. Minutes of the April 26, 2004, Council meeting regarding Lonebrook Drive item are provided in Attachment 3.
DISCUSSION
At its June 2004 meeting, the Council adopted formal Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures to be applied within the Town’s planning jurisdiction. A copy of the policy and procedures is presented in Attachment 4.
We have reviewed and evaluated the original petition for traffic calming measures on Lonebrook Drive with regard to the requirements of the adopted policy and procedures for traffic calming, as discussed below.
1) Service Area: We have identified the service area for Lonebrook Drive traffic calming devices in Attachment 5. The service area includes:
· All properties abutting Lonebrook Drive
· All properties on adjacent streets(s) with ingress/egress only possible via Lonebrook Drive
· All properties on adjacent street(s) that have alternative points of ingress/egress but could be otherwise affected by modification of Lonebrook Drive
2) Petition: We found that a total of 196 property owners are in the identified service area. The original petition received by the Town for traffic calming measures on Lonebrook Drive included 63 signatures, mainly from the Parkside neighborhood. A petition with signatures of 2/3’s of the property owners within the service area is required under the adopted policy and procedures. On this basis, signatures of 131 of the property owners in the service area would be necessary to validate a traffic calming petition.
Also, in accordance with the adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures, removal of traffic calming devices require signatures of 2/3’s of the property owner’s within the service area. The petition from Mr. Eric Plow requesting removal of the approved traffic calming devices on Lonebrook Drive includes only 22 signatures.
Traffic Studies: We have compared the study results on Lonebrook Drive with the criteria included in the approved policy and procedures as shown in the following table:
|
Criteria |
Policy Requirement |
December 2002 Studies (no stop signs) |
September 2003 Studies (with stop signs) |
|
Average Daily Traffic Volume (vpd) |
800 – 3000 |
Location #1: 578 Location #2: 365 |
Location #1: 530 Location #2: 363 |
|
85th percentile Speed (mph) |
35 |
Location #1: 33 Location #2: 32 |
Location #1: 32 Location #2: 29 |
Based on the values presented in the table, we believe that the approved speed humps on Lonebrook Drive do not meet the adopted policy criteria. The traffic calming measures on Lonebrook Drive were approved by the Council prior to its adoption of formal Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
Stop Signs: In 1989, the Town Council adopted a policy for the placement of stop signs and assignment of speed limits. The policy includes a variety of conditions and situations that could warrant the installation of stop signs and/or changes in speed limits. It also includes situations in which stop sign installations or speed limit changes would not be recommended. These criteria are based on a combination of generally accepted traffic engineering principles and our observations of stop sign installations in Chapel Hill and in other communities in North Carolina. A copy of the policy is provided in Appendix A of Attachment 4.
The primary function of stop signs is to assign right-of-way at an intersection. From our research into the effectiveness of various traffic calming measures, we have learned that a combination of stop signs in conjunction with traffic calming devices (such as speed humps) can be effective in mitigating speeding and cut-through traffic problems in residential areas.
We believe that the existing stop sign installation on Lonebrook Drive is reasonable and effective, and should remain.
Because there is not consensus among property owners within the Lonebrook Drive service area regarding the installation of traffic calming measures, we suggest that the Council defer installation of approved speed humps until such time that the neighborhood submits a valid petition requesting the installation of traffic calming devices in accordance with the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
PORTABLE SPEED HUMPS:
Town staff researched the issue and found that several communities are using portable speed humps, mainly for temporary installations. Attachment 6 provides a photograph of a portable speed hump.
Portable speed humps, also known as “rubber speed humps”, are typically formed from recycled rubber in 4 foot to 8 foot wide sections bolted to steel connector plates and anchored onto the roadway using lag bolts. The size and markings are similar to those of permanent asphalt humps. Portable speed humps are used mainly for temporary installations where the hump is expected to be removed and/or replaced with a permanent hump.
Advantages:
· Typically reduces vehicle speeds in vicinity of hump
· Can reduce vehicular volumes under some circumstances
· Relatively easy to remove, if necessary
Disadvantages:
· Increased potential for Town liability if portable speed humps are improperly installed and are not regularly inspected and maintained.
· Relatively high unit cost (2-3 times cost of comparable asphalt unit)
· Requires frequent maintenance/repair (should be inspected daily to determine if units
are becoming loose and/or dislocated)
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provide limited guidance on the appropriate design and use of portable speed humps and other portable traffic management devices on public streets. Our research shows that the cost of installing a portable speed hump varies from $3,000 to $6,000, depending on the street width. Typically, humps are installed in sets of two and at multiple locations on a long street. Installation of portable speed humps would obligate the Town to inspect and maintain them on a much more frequent basis than is necessary with asphalt speed humps.
In his previous position with the City of Fayetteville, NC, our Traffic Engineer experimented with portable speed humps on public streets. He found that the portable units were difficult to install securely and often loosened and became displaced, thus requiring significant levels of inspection and maintenance.
Due to the relatively high installation costs, significant inspection and maintenance obligations, and limited guidance from the MUTCD and FHWA regarding their use, we do not believe that portable speed humps provide a practical alternative to standard asphalt humps at this time.
CONCLUSION
Based on our field observations and study data, the installation of stop signs alone have not provided a statistically significant reduction in vehicular volumes or speeds on Lonebrook Drive.
The existing petition(s) that we have on file from the Lonebrook Drive neighborhoods and the results of traffic studies on Lonebrook Drive do not meet the criteria of the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures. We therefore recommend that the Council defer installation of the previously approved speed humps on Lonebrook Drive until such time that property owners in the Lonebrook Drive service area submit a valid petition requesting the installation of traffic calming devices in accordance with the adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
If a valid petition is received, we would review and evaluate the installation of traffic calming devices on Lonebrook Drive in accordance with the adopted policy and procedures, and would include the Lonebrook Drive project along with others in the annual traffic calming report to the Town Council for its review.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The Manager recommends that the Council adopt Resolution A that would defer installation of speed humps on Lonebrook Drive until the neighborhood submits a valid petition in accordance with the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
Alternatively, the Council could adopt Resolution B and enact Ordinance A that would remove the existing stop signs on Lonebrook Drive and would defer installation of speed humps on Lonebrook Drive until the neighborhood submits a valid petition in accordance with the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
1. Area Map showing Locations of Approved Traffic Calming Devices (p. 9)
2. April 26, 2004 Council Report (p. 10)
3. Minutes of April 26, 2004 Council Meeting for Lonebrook Drive Item (p. 75)
4. Policy and Procedures for Traffic Calming Measures (p. 77)
5. Traffic Calming Service Area Map for Lonebrook Drive (p. 86)
6. Photograph of a Portable Speed Hump (p. 87)
RESOLUTION A
A RESOLUTION DEFERRING THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS ON LONEBROOK DRIVE (2004-11-08/R-5a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is concerned about vehicular and non-vehicular safety and mobility on Town streets; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a petition opposing some elements of the traffic calming plan approved by the Council on January 27, 2003, involving Lonebrook Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Council directed the Manager to conduct follow-up traffic studies on Lonebrook Drive and to submit a report including analysis of the results of the traffic studies and recommendations for further action on the approved traffic calming plan; and
WHEREAS, Town staff conducted follow-up studies and the Manager presented a report and recommendations to the Council on April 26, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Council adopted formal Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures on June 30, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Council received a follow-up report from the Manager including discussion of the current Lonebrook Drive petitions relative to the requirements of the adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council defers further consideration of speed humps previously approved for installation on Lonebrook Drive until such time that the neighborhood submits a valid petition in accordance with the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to inform interested property owners in the Lonebrook neighborhoods of the Council’s decision and to provide information to residents regarding the Council adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
This the 8th day of November, 2004.
RESOLUTION B
A RESOLUTION REMOVING EXISTING STOP SIGNS AND DEFERRING INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS ON LONEBROOK DRIVE (2004-11-08/R-5b)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is concerned about vehicular and non-vehicular safety and mobility on Town streets; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a petition opposing some elements of the traffic calming plan approved by the Council on January 27, 2003, involving Lonebrook Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Council directed the Manager to conduct follow-up traffic studies on Lonebrook Drive and to submit a report including analysis of the results of the traffic studies and recommendations for further action on the approved traffic calming plan; and
WHEREAS, Town staff conducted follow-up studies and the Manager presented a report and recommendations to the Council on April 26, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Council adopted formal Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures on June 30, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Council received a follow-up report from the Manager including discussion of the current Lonebrook Drive petitions relative to the requirements of the adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council desires to have the existing stop signs on Lonebrook Drive removed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council defers further consideration of speed humps previously approved for installation on Lonebrook Drive until such time that the neighborhood submits a valid petition in accordance with the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to inform interested property owners in the Lonebrook Drive neighborhoods of the Council’s decisions and to provide information to residents regarding the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures.
This the 8th day of November, 2004.
ORDINANCE A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2004-11-08/O-8)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-13(c) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by deleting the following:
“Intersection(s)
Lonebrook Drive and Tremont Circle
Lonebrook Drive and Glenmore Road”
Section 2. Section 21-13(a) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
“Through Streets Stop Streets
Lonebrook Drive Tremont Circle
Lonebrook Drive Glenmore Road”
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective November 10th, 2004.
This the 8th day of November, 2004.