Loading...
SR-506-003-05 F:\PCD\Share\speedhump February 15, 2000 Santa Monica, California To: Mayor and City Council From: City Staff Subject: Recommendations To Consider, Approve And Direct Implementation Of The Policies Contained In Residential Traffic Management Handbook; and Authorize Staff To Proceed With Design and Construction of the Fourth Street Traffic Plan and Test Rubber Speed Humps On Twenty Eighth th Street, 10 Street between Alta Avenue and Montana Avenue and La Mesa Drive Introduction This report provides background on neighborhood traffic management efforts throughout the City, summarizes the results of two test locations of traffic management measures, recommends specific features as permanent measures on one of the test streets, and outlines modifications to the City?s policy on residential traffic management. Background As early as 1984 with the adoption of the Land Use and Circulation Element to the General Plan, Santa Monica has committed to implementing neighborhood traffic management measures. However, residential traffic management programs are among the most controversial issues a City faces. Starting in 1993, the City Council approved traffic management programs for the Mid-City, Pico, Sunset Park and Ocean Park Neighborhoods. Traffic management measures have been installed in the Pico Neighborhood and are currently under construction in the Mid City and Sunset Park 1 th Neighborhoods. The measures approved for Ocean Park were installed on 4 Street on a temporary basis to test their effectiveness. In 1996 the Council approved the Sunset Park Traffic Plan and the City Residential Traffic Management Handbook. Within the Sunset Park Plan and the Handbook, speed humps were identified as an effective means of managing traffic speed. The Sunset Park Plan identified sixteen streets as candidates for speed humps. However, according to the procedures outlined in the Residential Traffic Management Handbook, speed humps could be installed on a residential street if certain criteria were met and over 60% of all the dwelling units on the street were represented on a qualifying petition. At the inception of the speed hump program, the Fire Department was consulted and expressed concern over the delay in emergency response that speed humps may cause. The March 26, 1996 staff report on the Sunset Park Plan, states "...Police and Fire expressed concern about the impact on response time and the citywide proliferation of speed humps". By October 1997, 23 requests for speed humps had been submitted to the City. Between October and December of 1996 speed humps were installed on the City?s residential streets including 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 25th Streets, and Cloverfield Boulevard, by petition and as part of approved neighborhood traffic plans. As of today, 59 complaints of speed and petitions for humps are pending with the City. 2 In April 1997, several residents from the Pico Neighborhood and the area east of Santa Monica College expressed concern to the City Council about emergency response delays attributed to the presence of speed humps. The Council directed staff to conduct a thorough investigation and assess the citywide impact of speed humps on emergency vehicle response times. In the spring of 1997, the Fire Department conducted tests using emergency apparatus to determine the actual delays caused by the speed humps in the Sunset Park area. Delays averaged 6.5 seconds per speed hump. These delays were comparable to what other cities were experiencing. An analysis of these tests and the impacts on emergency service delivery were presented to the City Council in an information item dated October 14, 1997. In the report City staff concluded more analysis was required to assess emergency response impacts, and alternatives to speed humps should be considered through public workshops and consultation with outside experts. A moratorium on the installation of speed humps was instituted pending the outcome of the Council directed investigation. During this period, the Fire Department conducted research to determine (regardless of the speed hump issue) if there were adjustments that could be made to the current response districts that would provide quicker access to certain areas due to actual distances, street layout and more direct routes. This research led to permanent changes in the Department response districts. 3 In December 1997, the Planning and Community Development Department engaged a nationally recognized residential traffic management consulting team of Dan Burden and Michael Wallwork who conducted a workshop on alternative residential traffic management measures. Over 1,000 people were notified of the meeting including all residents living on the twenty-three streets who had submitted speed hump petitions. The Fire Department actively participated in this workshop. At the workshop several traffic-calming measures were described, including traffic circles, roundabouts, gateway treatments, medians, and horizontal deflection devices. A "horizontal deflection" device causes a vehicle to slow by deflecting the straight-line path of a vehicle around an island or curb extension. In comparison, a speed hump causes a vehicle to slow with a "vertical deflection.? Following the workshop, staff identified traffic circles and medians, or horizontal deflection devices, as the most promising measures in lieu of speed humps for testing in Santa Monica. thth In March 1998 staff met with neighborhood representatives from 28 Street and 4 Street to review the alternatives and proposed that the alternative measures be tested on the two streets. In April 1998 staff conducted informational meetings for residents in both areas to receive comments on the proposed measures. At that time no significant opposition was expressed. In the summer of 1998 the temporary measures were installed for a test period. The tests of traffic circles/medians were conducted to gauge their success in reducing speed and their impact on emergency vehicles buses and th automobiles. On 28 Street the City first tested traffic circles without curb extensions, 4 then, at the request of residents on the street, the City tested traffic circles with curb extensions. Test Results 28th Street On 28th Street six mid-block traffic circles were installed and tested, and then curb extensions were installed at each traffic circle and tested. The experimental program on 28th Street provided the closest comparison to speed humps, since traffic circles were placed at the same locations where speed humps would normally be placed. The 28th Street traffic circles also provided an excellent comparison to similar streets such as 20th, 23rd and Cloverfield, which have speed humps. Information on performance of City of Portland speed humps is also included for reference. th The table below compares the average and 85 percentile speeds both at the hump or th circle and at the straightaway between the installations. The 85 percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85% of the motorists on the street were travelling. It provides an indication of whether a relatively high number of motorists exceed the measured average speed. The results indicate that the circles have speed performance characteristics similar to speed humps, with circles including extensions functioning slightly more effectively than those without. The Santa Monica data for all measures is within the performance range seen in the City of Portland for their extensive speed hump program. 5 Traffic volume data, included in Appendix F, indicates that there was a reduction in the number of cars (in the range of 3-22%) on streets following the installation of speed th humps. On 28 Street, the data suggests a slight increase (1-7%) after the humps were installed on parallel streets, but indicates that with the installation of circles, volumes are at or below (1-11%) pre-calming levels. Summary of Speed Studies hump/circle speed straightaway speed Average 85%ile Average 85%ile Sunset Park Speed Humps 14 mph 17.5 mph 23 mph 25.8 mph th 28 St Circles (no extension) 16.8 mph 19.8 mph 24.7 mph 27.7 mph th 28 St Circles & extensions 14.5 mph 17.9 mph 23.3 mph 26.8 mph Portland, Oregon Humps 17-20 mph 20-30 mph (rubber or asphalt) Attachment F to this report provides more detailed results from speed and volume studies that were conducted in February 1999. Even though traffic circles reduce the 85th percentile and average speed of traffic along a street, there are some disadvantages. The traffic circles result in the loss of on-street parking, approximately six to eight spaces per location. This is critical in multi-family residential areas where on-street parking is in high demand. The horizontal deflection maneuvering around a traffic circle causes traffic to move immediately adjacent to the 6 curb and sidewalk areas. Staff has received some comments from residents that expressed their concern about this maneuver. A review of accident records from the State database indicated there were 8 reported th accidents along 28Street in the segment between Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards during the three years prior to the installation of traffic circles. In the nine months for which there is data following the installation of traffic circles there is one reported accident involving a parked car. Residents also reported seeing and being involved in several accidents involving parked cars following the installation of the circles, however there are no reports on file. th Emergency response experience with 28 Street traffic circles The initial traffic circle installations slowed both street traffic and emergency vehicles. Typically 6-10 seconds of emergency response delay can be attributed to the traffic circle. Traffic circles without curb extensions were deemed slightly better than the speed humps in preserving emergency response speed. Traffic circles that included curb extensions however, narrowed the passageway to the point that emergency vehicles could not negotiate the circle without coming to a near or complete stop. The Fire Department's Aerial Ladder Truck, an emergency apparatus that responds to all fires within the city limits, must come to multiple complete stops for each traffic circle in order to negotiate there devices. At times, due to parked cars or poor visibility, a firefighter must actually get off the vehicle and assist in guiding it through the traffic circle from street level. Additionally, as this apparatus is slowly negotiating the traffic 7 circle, passenger vehicles have crossed over into oncoming traffic to pass the slow moving ladder truck. 4th Street The 4th Street Traffic Plan was initiated several years ago by residents concerned about traffic volumes and speeds along 4th Street. The plan was developed in conjunction with neighborhood representatives and the Ocean Park Community Organization (OPCO). Over the years, several plans were developed, including a plan with speed humps and the current plan with a traffic circle. The plans were shared with neighborhood residents at community open house meetings. Neighborhood representatives also shared the traffic plan at OPCO congresses. The enhancements proposed in the plan have been implemented with temporary devices to test their effectiveness. The traffic data collected after the implementation of the temporary measures indicates that average traffic speeds approaching the traffic circle at Strand Street are between 23 and 28 miles per hour (mph). At the traffic circle the speeds are between 20 and 22 mph. Also, departing the traffic circle speeds are between 21 and 24 mph. Additionally, recent traffic volume counts show a general reduction in vehicles along 4th Street. A review of records from the State database indicated that there were 17 reported th accidents along 4 Street in the three years prior to the installation of the traffic measures and two in the nine months afterwards for which data is available. The 8 number of reported accidents per year remained similar before and after the plan, however the ?before? accidents included 2 accidents with pedestrians, 2 with cyclists and one attributed to unsafe speed. Both of the ?after? accidents took place in August th 1998 south of the intersection of 4 and Pacific and both involved motorists? making turning errors and hitting parked vehicles. Neighborhood comments on the Traffic Management Measures Staff conducted several neighborhood meetings about the temporary traffic measures thth for both 28 Street residents and 4 Street residents in the summer/fall of 1998. These included a meeting for 28th Street on July 22, 1999, for 4th Street on November 10, 1999 and a community-wide meeting for residents that have submitted petitions for th speed humps or complained about speeding on November 30, 1999. Residents of 28 Street generally expressed frustration that they did not have speed humps on their street, although a minority preferred the traffic circles with curb extensions. The main reason people opposed the traffic circles was that they resulted in a loss of parking spaces. People also perceived them to be safety problems and to cause noise. Results of a questionnaire mailed to households on 28th Street and returned by 111 people confirmed the comments residents made at the meeting. Of the respondents, 74 indicated that they prefer not to retain the mid-block traffic circles with a permanent design. A significant minority of the opponents, 23 of the 74 agree that the traffic circles do reduce speeds, but that the reduction in parking and other negative effects offset benefit. 9 At the November 30, 1999 community meeting, residents received more information from the City?s Police and Fire Departments regarding the impact of traffic calming measures on emergency response. Some residents agreed that the cost in response time is too great, but others were more concerned about the potential for serious traffic accidents related to speed without the measures. Tested Alternative - Rubber Speed Hump The rubber speed hump was identified as a promising control measure for Santa Monica for several reasons. It has a uniform size and design. It is environmentally friendly, being made of recycled rubber, rather than asphalt, it does not require the removal of parking spaces, and it has the potential to be more forgiving to large heavy vehicles including ladder trucks and other Fire Department Emergency response vehicles. The City of Portland, Oregon, which has installed over 500 speed humps since its program began, has installed and tested rubber speed humps as part of its program. According to the Traffic Calming section of the Bureau of Traffic Management, the rubber speed hump performs comparably to 3-inch asphalt speed humps in actual street installations. Recently a three-inch high, fourteen-foot wide, rubber speed hump of the design installed and tested by the City of Portland, was installed in a beach parking lot for test purposes. The Fire Department and Big Blue Bus tested the hump and concluded the measure has a distinct advantage over asphalt humps. All of the Fire Department 10 vehicles were able to traverse the hump without coming to a stop. During the test it appeared fire vehicles could maintain a speed between 15-20 mph over the device, allowing an average speed of 25 mph on a street where the measures may be installed. Based on previous tests, an asphalt hump results in an approximate 6.5-second delay per hump. In contrast, the rubber hump results in an approximate 2.5-3 second delay per hump. Although the rubber hump still impacts emergency response times, the Fire Department supports testing the rubber hump as an alternative to traffic circles and asphalt speed humps. Discussion Staff has evaluated issues surrounding the installation of residential traffic management measures, installed and tested traffic circles as an alternative to the speed hump and recently tested a rubber speed hump in an off-street environment. All effective residential traffic management measures have some negative effects on emergency response time. As a result, staff is recommending additional criteria for the installation of these measures on neighborhood streets, as well as ruling out the use of certain measures that have a greater impact on emergency response. The City receives a significant number of speeding complaints on local residential streets. On many of these streets, the average speeds range from 25 m.p.h. to 35 m.p.h. above the speed limit. To effectively enforce, Police resources would need to be 11 present on each street, but this would be extremely expensive. Periodic enforcement is effective, however, it does not provide a long-term solution. Although many residents want traffic management devices on their streets, others do not want them and the Fire Department has expressed concerns. The Fire Department's responsibility is to arrive at an emergency as quickly as possible. The Department is extremely concerned about traffic calming devices because they adversely impact the Department's response times. The proliferation of traffic calming devices will have a negative impact on response times to the over 8200 emergency calls that the Department will respond to every year. It is estimated that the Department's target average response time will rise from the current 4.1 minutes to between 4.7 - 5.1 minutes in areas where traversing traffic calming devices is necessary. The Fire Department strongly prefers that no traffic calming devices be implemented. However, if they are to exist, the rubber speed hump and the mid-block traffic circles/medians without curb extensions are preferred over speed humps. Although delay is still encountered, the movement over a rubber speed hump or movement around a well-designed traffic circle does not cause the near to complete or complete stop that the Fire vehicles encounter over asphalt speed humps. It is critical to note that the Fire Department opposes the use of traffic circles with curb extensions, as the wider emergency vehicles must come to a complete stop to negotiate them. 12 In the event that the traffic calming program moratorium is lifted and traffic measures proliferate throughout the City, the Fire Department has designated specific streets as "emergency response routes" (Attachment B). The Fire Department requests that no further traffic measure be installed on streets identified in Attachment B. On September 23, 1999 multiple fire units responded to an aircraft crash and fire at the Santa Monica Airport. Units responding from Fire Headquarters (1444 7th St.) were delayed approximately 1-2 minutes as they traversed the speed humps on 20th St. As a result of this delay, the Fire Department recommends that measures now in place on 20th Street and Cloverfield Blvd. that are designated as response routes, be removed and replaced with rubber speed humps. The Big Blue Bus, Community and Cultural Services, and Environmental and Public Works Departments, all having large vehicles, have not expressed opposition to traffic circles or medians. Their key interest is to ensure the design of any measure permits maneuverability of their large vehicles around the device. Recommended policy changes After considering the implications of widespread installation of traditional speed humps on emergency response times and the need to improve the livability of Santa Monica by reliably controlling excessive speeding on local residential streets, the Planning and Community Development Department recommends modifications to the residential 13 traffic management policy previously approved by the Council. The revisions include two types of restrictions on installation of neighborhood traffic management measures: Limitations on the locations where they can be considered 1. . ? Residential traffic management measures should be installed only on streets with the most serious problems, that is, streets where the average speed exceeds 32 miles per hour. ? At this time streets currently without traffic measures installed, and identified as emergency response routes, will not be a candidate for rubber speed humps or traffic circles. ? Petitions will be considered only when these criteria are met, and the petitions themselves include full disclosure as to the likely impact on emergency response time and the likely locations of measures on the qualified streets. Limitations of measures to be considered 2. . ? Based on their effect on emergency response vehicles, only horizontal deflection measures and rubber speed humps will be implemented and installation of asphalt speed humps will not be reinstated. ? Final design of traffic management measures will incorporate results of field testing with Fire Department equipment to ensure that emergency response vehicles can navigate streets where measures are installed. 14 Test period for rubber humps Because rubber speed humps have not been tested on streets in Santa Monica, staff recommends installing and testing rubber humps on three streets and conducting a performance review. The review should consider neighborhood opinion, measured speed reduction and effect on emergency response vehicles. The three streets ththth identified are 28 Street, La Mesa Drive and 10 Street from Alta to Montana. On 28 Street residents have already expressed a preference for speed humps over traffic circles. The two other streets meet the minimum recommended criteria for installation of residential traffic measures and have pending speed hump petitions on file with the City. Transportation Management staff will notify residents of the intent to install and test rubber speed humps, and with the support of the neighbors, implement humps within six months. By July 2001, staff will conduct and report on an evaluation of the measures implemented on these streets, including their impact on speeds, volumes and emergency response. In addition to expediting testing of the rubber speed humps on the three streets, staff will begin the process of identifying traffic measures and meeting with residents on other streets that qualify under the new residential traffic management policy. Effect of recommendations on existing speed humps The Council directed staff to develop an alternative to speed humps for future use. If the Council approves staff?s recommendation, previously installed speed humps will remain in place for the time being. However, because of the concerns of the Fire th Department about emergency response via 20 Street and Cloverfield Boulevard the 15 Fire Department recommends consideration be given to removing the existing asphalt humps and replacing them with an alternative measure. A final decision on this issue cannot be made at this time. Residents of these streets must be provided with information about the performance of alternative measures, notified of the potential changes and given an opportunity to comment before the City formally considers any modification to the traffic management measures on their streets. They have not been targeted to attend meetings on changes to the residential traffic management policy, because they already have speed humps on their streets. Because the recommendation relates so specifically to the relative performance of rubber speed humps to asphalt speed humps, consideration of this issue should only occur after the City has had an opportunity to review the performance of the rubber humps in actual on-street installations and addressed the outstanding complaints submitted by other streets in the City. Budget/Fiscal Impact The costs of the neighborhood traffic management program and the 4th Street Traffic Plan will be funded from existing CIP accounts for "Neighborhood Traffic Measures". Recommendations 1. Approve modifications to the Residential Traffic Management Handbook. 2. Approve the 4th Street Traffic Plan. Direct staff to replace temporary with permanent improvements pursuant to the plan. 4 Direct staff to remove temporary traffic circles and temporary parking regulations on th 28 Street and initiate a test program with rubber speed humps. 16 th 5 Direct staff to notify residents of La Mesa Drive and 10 Street, between Montana and Alta, of the intent to install and test rubber speed humps on those streets. 6 Direct staff to implement the Residential Traffic Management Handbook policies on all other qualifying streets. 7 Review and report back to Council on the performance of rubber speed humps by July 2001. Prepared by: Planning and Community Development Department Suzanne Frick, Director Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager Ron Fuchiwaki, Traffic Operations Manager Fire Department Ettore Berardinelli, Chief Bill Kolberg, Deputy Chief Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed Residential Traffic Management Handbook Attachment B: Map and list of Emergency Response Routes Attachment C: Map and list of streets where speed hump petitions and speeding complaints have been submitted to the City Attachment D: Map and list of existing speed hump locations Attachment E: Map and list of streets with measured average speeds greater than 32 mph th Attachment F: Summary of 28 Street speed and volume studies th Attachment G: 4 Street Traffic Plan Attachment H: Rubber speed hump information 17