SR-032696-9APCD:SF:RKF:nusunset:WINWORD
Council Meeting: March 26, 1996
- ~ ~ #
Santa Monica,aCalifarnia
~~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Staff
Subject: Recommendation to Approve the Proposed Traffic Measures
for Sunset Park, a Citywide Speed Hump Program and the
Residential Traffic Management Handbook
Introduction
This report recommends the City Council approve the newly
proposed traffic measures for Sunset Park, a Citywide speed hump
program and the Residential Traffic Management Handbook.
Discussion
Far several years, staff and the Sunset Park community have
attempted to adopt a Sunset Park traffic plan to address the
traffic concerns in the neighborhood. The Council has considered
this matter on several occasions. Most recently, in May of 1995,
staff was directed to develop a plan and return to Council.
The newly proposed traffic measures for Sunset Park, concentrates
on the management of existing traffic flows, and does not present
measures designed to divert traffic as did some of the previous
plans. The primary components of the program include stop signs,
speed humps, curb extensions and a median. These measures
26~9~
1
~ ~-_ ~ ~
specifically address the concerns about speeding throughout the
neighborhood. Staff has not incorporated traffic diversion
devices in these proposed measures because the diversion measures
initially used in the Mid City Traffic Plan showed that diversion
measures shift traffic to adjacent residential streets thereby
pushing one street's traffic problems to another residential
street. Staff has determined this is not acceptable, and
therefore no traffic diversion measures in Sunset Park are
proposed. A map of the proposed traffic measures for Sunset Park
is attached as Exhibit A.
The components of the proposed traffic measures include the
following.
I. Nevi STOP signs
On Pearl Street at ].0th Street
On 14th Street at Grant Avenue and at Cedar Street
On 16th Street at Hill Street
On 17th Street at Cedar Street
On 18th Street at Hill Street
On Dewey Street at 18th Street
On 21st Street at Ashland Avenue
On Pearl Street at 26th Street
On 25th Street at Oak, Hill and Ashland
At the intersection of Pier Avenue and Clover Street
II. Speed Humps
On Pearl Street between Euclid and 16th Streets, and between
26th and 33rd Streets
On Marine Street between 11th and 16th Streets
on Dewey Street between 18th and 23rd Streets
On 14th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, Cloverfield, 25th,
28th and 29th Streets between Pico Boulevard and Ocean
Park Boulevard
On 33rd and 34th Streets between Pico Boulevard and Pearl
Street
2
Qualifying petitions must be submitted on the streets listed
above if residents agree they want speed humps on these
streets, otherwise, speer~ humps will not be installed.
These streets are considered "pre-qualified" and satisfy the
criteria for speed humps.
III, Curb Extensions {Chokers}
On Pearl Street east of Lincoln Boulevard, east and west of
11th Street, east and west of Euclid Street, east of
20th Street and west of Centinela Avenue
On 23rd Street and on Cloverfield Boulevard south of the
alley south of Pico Boulevard and north of the alley
north of Ocean Park
On all corners at the intersections of 23rd Street and Pearl
Street, Cloverfield Boulevard and Pearl Street, and
28th and Pearl Street
On Marine Street east of Lincoln Boulevard
Note: It is anticipated that many of the locations listed
above will result in the loss of some on-street parking
spaces. Until detailed design drawings are completed the
number of lost spaces is unknown at this time.
IV. Traffic Signal Improvements
At the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Pearl Street,
modify the traffic signal for a mare efficient operation.
v. Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
At the intersection of 23rd Street and Ashland Avenue,
improve pedestrian crossings lay including curb extensions, a
median refuge island, contrasting pavement and signage.
VI. "Entry"/Radian island
On 23rd Street from Dewey Street to Ashland Avenue, extend
the median island and develop an "entry" landscaped median.
Openings will be provided far access into Dewey, Navy,
Marine, Pier and Ashland.
VII. Channelisation Island
Dn 28th Street south of Ocean Park Boulevard construct a
channelization island to help enforce the northbound left
and right turn only movements.
3
Public Process
The residents and businesses in Sunset Park were advised of the
newly proposed traffic measures in a notice sent by the City in
October 1995, and then they were notified of a revised plan in
March 199b. Staff received several letters and phones call in
response to these notices. For the most part, the responses have
been positive with extreme interest in speed humps. Also there
have been many questions about curb extensions and some comments
about too many stop signs, as well as requests for additional
stop signs.
In addition, staff attended neighborhood meetings at the request
of Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP), and a Board meetings of Sunset
Park Associated Neighbors (SPAN). At all of the meetings, staff
responded to questions and comments from the attendees about the
proposed plan.
Consultant Peer Review of Proposed Plan
In January of 1996, staff retained the services of Daniel Smith
of Smith Engineering and Management to conduct a peer review of
the newly proposed traffic plan, and previous Sunset Park traffic
plans. Mr. Smith has an extensive background in neighborhood
traffic programs, including the well known neighborhood traffic
program in the City of Berkeley in the 1970's and participation
in several publications.
4
In general, Mr. Smith agrees with staff's approach on the newly
proposed traffic plan, that is, diversion techniques should not
be used and that the management of existing traffic is the most
appropriate and reasonable approach. Mr. Smith did recommend
additional locations for speed humps and curb extensions, and
staff has incorporated some of those in the plan. A copy of Mr.
Smith's technical memorandum is attached as Exhibit B.
Mr. Smith and staff also met with FOSP and SPAN on two occasions
to discuss Sunset Park traffic plan issues. When Mr. Smith was
initially retained and prior to any extensive review of past or
current traffic plan proposals, he met with Board representatives
of FOSP and SPAN to listen to their issues and concerns about
neighborhood traffic and the use of various traffic control
measures. Also, after Mr. Smith's review and preparation of his
Technical Memorandum, he met again with Board representatives to
discuss his analysis and recommendations.
Imtilementation Plan
If the proposed traffic plan is approved by Council, staff will
begin an implementation process. The stop signs will be
installed by city staff and can be completed within 30 working
days. However, the remaining components of the plan are formal
Public Works construction projects and will involve a design,
bidding, award of contract and construction process.
5
As indicated in this report, the installation of speed humps on
any street will require the submission of a qualifying petition
from residents along the street. It is estimated the design
phase for speed humps will require 90 days to complete. This
should give residents adequate time to gather a petition and
include their street in the first grouping of streets for speed
hump installation. It is estimated the construction of the speed
humps will begin in late summer.
The other components such as curb extensions, traffic signal
improvements, pedestrian crossing enhancements, median and
channelizatian islands may require six to nine months to design
and another three to six months to construct. These timelines
will also depend on the availability and resources in the Civil
Engineering Division of the Environmental and Public Works
Management Department, the division who responsible for all
Public Works construction projects in the City.
CEQA
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA based on the Class 1(3D) and Class 1(15) exemption
categories,
Citywide speed Hump Program
An important component for the Sunset Park area, and an a
Citywide basis, is the implementation of a speed hump program. A
speed hump is a gentle undulation across the traveled way which
6
helps to manage and control the speed of traffic. Speed humps
are not like the speed bumps commonly encountered in parking lots
or on private streets. Several Southern California cities,
Northern California and the City of Portland are successfully
using speed humps as a speed management tool. The proposed Speed
Hump Policies, Procedures and Criteria are attached as Exhibit C.
Other City departments have been contacted about the proposed
speed hump program including Police, Fire, City Attorney, Risk
Management, Public Works, and Transportation. None of them
objected to the program, but Police and Fire expressed concern
about the impact on response time and the Citywide proliferation
of speed humps. Staff will work with the two departments to
monitor the situation and make modifications if there are
specific impacts.
There are at least two different types of speed humps that can be
considered for use in the City. The first, the typical and
probably most widely used, is a hump that rises vertically 2 1/2
to 3 inches, and is horizontally between 12 to 14 feet. The
second, sometimes called a "speed table", rises vertically about
the same, but is 20 to 22 feet horizontally. It has been found
that the 20 to 22 foot "table" is better for use on streets with
high transit or emergency vehicle use. Staff is recommending the
12 to 14 foot speed hump as the standard installation in the
City. However, in conjunction with the Police and Fire
Departments, the 20 to 22 foot "speed table" may be used if
7
Public Safety vehicles or access is adversely effected by the
standard hump.
Funds to implement a Citywide speed hump program will need to be
appropriated and is discussed in the Budget/Financial section of
this report.
Residential Traffic Management Handbook
The Residential Traffic Management Handbook is a proposed
publication to assist residents Citywide in addressing same of
their local traffic concerns. It contains information about
different traffic control measures which are available, and lists
the advantages and disadvantages of each device. It should be
Hated, that all of these traffic control measures have certain
criteria or guidelines to determine if they should be installed.
Also, the installation of some of these measures may depend upon
available funding.
Also included in the handbook are traffic control measures which
are not recommended far use an City streets. This information is
provided to document that the City has considered these dev~.ces
and found they were not appropriate, and may cause ar create more
problems than they are meant to resolve. A copy of the proposed
Residential Traffic Management Handbook is attached as Exhibit D.
The Handbook will be sent to a resident or residents when they
contact staff about traffic concerns on their street or in their
8
L V +
neighborhood. The Handbook will let them know the options
available and they can choose which traffic contra]. measure they
may wish to pursue. The Handbook may also minimize the need to
develop areawide or neighborhood wide "traffic plans" by allowing
residents concerned about a specific problem to pursue addressing
that problem and not involving streets or areas that may not be
interested in any traffic changes in their area.
Funds to implement some of the programs in the proposed Handbook
will need to be appropriated and is discussed in the
Budget/Financial section.
Budget/Financial Impact
For FY 95/96, the Council appropriated $100,000 at CIP account
#01-770-4i5-2DD96-8905-99553 for Sunset Park traffic
improvements. The estimated cast of all of the proposed measures
as presented in this staff report is $615,000. Therefore, it is
recommended the Council appropriate an additional $515,000 to
account #01-77D--415-20096-8905-99553.
In addition to the Sunset Park traffic improvements, staff is
recommending the Council appropriate funds to begin the
implementation of the speed hump program and other traffic
programs outlined in the Residential Traffic Management Handbook.
Since this will be a new program it cannot be determined at this
time the necessary amount of funds to conduct thesQ programs on
9
4
an on-going, annual basis, however, staff estimates an initial
fund of $200,000 is needed.
If approved, the total $815,000 will be appropriated from General
Fund reserves.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Approve the proposed traffic measures for sunset Park, a
Citywide speed hump program and the Residential Traffic
Management Handbook; and,
2. Appropriate $615,000 to CIP account #01-770-415-20096-8905-
99553 {Sunset Park Traffic Improvements); and,
3. Appropriate $20o,oaa to CIP account #01-770-415-20096-8905-
99841 {Neighborhood Traffic Measures).
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community
Development Department
Ran Fuchiwaki, City Parking and Traffic Engineer
(nusunset)
10
EXHIBIT A
Draft Sunset Park Traffic Plan
EXHIBIT B
Dan Srnith's Technical Memorandum
S~IIT;~-I E\GI~EKI\G ~ ~~:~\ -~c1~~1L~T
l
MEMORANDUM
__-~
- ~,
TO Paul Casey
FROM Dan Smyth L
DATE 1~ebruary 7, 1996
RE_ Sunset Park 1Vei;hhorhood Traffic Plan P96001x0
Per your request i have reviewed the City staff's "Draft Traffic Plan" for Sunset Park (map ver 10-
09-95) plus the extended documentation of prior traffic planning efforts for this neighborhood The
following summarizes my principal observations, conclusions and comments
PLA.~i PHILOSOPHY
The referenced plan is clearly a "behaviora[" plan Behavioral plans are ones which generally accept
the amount of traffic m the neighborhood and the most of the pattern of streets traffic currently
chooses to [ravel on, behavioral plans faces the traffc management effon on controlling speed and
increasing driver care and caution ' The plan as reflected m the map is principally aimed at traffic
along designated arterial-collector corridors such as 23'rd-Cloverfield, 16Th and 28Th plus assorted
other ho[-spots Behavioral plans are contrast with "diversionary plans", plans whose primary traffic
management effects are achieved by shifting traffic to other streets designated to serve higher volumes
of traffic moving across the community
A first question in my assessment was whether the approach of selecting a prunarily "behavioral"
strategy as the basis of the plan for Sunset Park was appropriate Was a "diversionary" strategy -
something like the earlier "enclave plan" or a variant of u - a reasonable possibility or even a
preferable alternatives My conclusion is that a behavioral strategy is a reasonable approach in this
neighborhood, a diversionary strategy unot - at least not for the streets where the principal current
concerns are being expressed The following points are key to this understanding
• The neighborhood is a quite large area, extending approximately 2 miles east-west by 1 iriile
north-south It spans approximately 7~ percent of the City's entire east-west dimension and
about 25 percent of the City's entire north-south dimension In an area of such size, there
is a natural need for a nurriber of arterial-collector routes for Santa Monica local area
movements, especially in the north-south direction across the neighborhood's wide
Plans which are "behavioral" over a broad area may incorporate elements which aim at
"diversion" effects for some limited streets or blocks but the dominant effect is on "traffic calming"
rather than "traffic displacement"
~4EMORAIvtDUM
February• 7, 1996
Paae 2
dimension In an area with "superblock" features which block the continuity of numbers
of streets, there is a further tendency and need to concentrate traffic on streets which pass
their perutieter In Sunset Park's case, the Santa Monica airport constitutes a massive
"superblock" while Santa :Monica College comprises one of less dramatic sigmficance
• Comparison of a rough estimate of traffic generation for land uses wuhin Sunset Park
boundaries and available traffic counts suggests that half to somewhat more than half of all
traffic observed crossing neighborhood boundaries is traffic generated by the land uses
within Sunset Park This suggests many of the streets of concern wotitd still be fairly busy
even if they served only Sunset Park traffic and that at least half the traffic is not subject to
diversion in any case
• Although the City does not have good origin-destination data on traffic moving across the
neighborhood, the pattern of the major street and highway network m Santa 11~ionica and its
immediate environs and the traffic conditions on that network give a fairly clear indication
of the nature of traffic which crosses the neighborhood It is evident that the designated
arterials and collectors in Sunset Park are in a pattern useful to and to same degree
necessary for the reasonable movement of trips by other Santa Momcans, trips by residents
of other pans of Santa Monica or persons either with purposeful trip origins or destinations
within Santa :Monica
• After considering tripmaking by Sunset Park residents [hemselves and the reasonable
patterns of tripmaking across this area to and from other Santa Monica origins and
destinations, and afrer considering the context of the regional circulation network, it appears
that tnpmakers who might be readily diverted, those from well outside Santa Monica
accessingiegressing the Santa 1~Ionica freeway or otherwise making a thru trip across the
City comprise a nuisance element rather than a dominant share of the traffic observed in
Sunset Park
• The pattern of the area street network is such that, for the majority of those who now cross
the neighborhood in the north-south direction, alternate routings would involve considerable
out-of-direction travel and travel qn fairly congested streets As a result, drivers can be
expected to react to a diversion scheme on the primary north-south routes across the
neighborhood by seeking secondary routings through the neighborhood rather than by
shifting to other routes outside the neighborhood In this particular setting an intensive
diversion scheme which seats all the plausible routes across the neighborhood appears to be
what would be necessary to make a diversion scheme work A diversion scheme which
principally or solely addresses traffic on the aforementioned busier streets m the
neighborhood would simply shift traffic to other streets within the neighborhood '
= It is important to recognize that "diversion" schemes are not limited to those employing
"barner" treatments (diagonal diverters, cul-de-sacs, half cul-de-sacs) on the busier streets Schemes
which prohibit or significantlr• discourage primary turning movements on busier streets, ones which
introduce significant congestion points on busier streets or schemes such as the unique proposal to
MEMORAND li'~1
Februan• 7, 1996
Page 3
• In diversionary schemes where streets that did not previously experience significant traffic
problems must be equipped with diversion devices to protect them from traffic diverted from
the primary problem streets, many residents can be expected to react to the interference with
their own access-egress patterns and oppose the schemes The same people can also be
expected to vigorously resist if diversion plans fail to protect their streets This rather typical
pattern already seems to have emerged m Sunset Park with the neighborhood divided into
two opposed camps In this particular neighborhood, the numbers who clearly benefit from
the primary diversions and the numbers who either fear their street may receive the diverted
traffic andlor dislike the inconvenience necessary to protect their own and other streets from
it appear likely to be roughly similar As a consequence. the lack of a clear mandate for
public policy on a diversion plan appears likely It is also noteworthy that a large
operate 23'rd and Cloverfield one-way northbound in the AM peak, southbound m the PM peak, are
all in essence diversionary schemes Although the busy streets would be free of visible barriers,
traffic would be diverted and necessitate extensive treatment of the surrounding minor streets to protect
those streets from traffic diverted from the busy streets We observe as a further note that although
there are ample precedents for reversible lanes, we doubt the practicalrty of signaling, signing and
marking for safe operation of reversible one-tivay urban streets
There have actually been a number of proposals for [he 23'rd/Cloverfield corridor that, though they
do not employ harrier treatments, are essentially diversion schemes One that protiihits eastbound to
northbound left turns from Ocean Park to CEoverfield and westbound to southbound left turns from
Pico to 23'rd leaves open paths across the corridor «~ith northbound traffic continuing straight on
23'rd to Pico and southbound traffic continuing straight an Cloverfield to Ocean-Park This would
force the entire[v of northbound and southbound flows to cuss-cross each other twice, at the
intersections of 23'rd-Ocean Park and at Pico-Clove~eld The underlying intent in this scheme is
that the congestion created at the two intersections where the entire flows are forced to cross will
cause traffic to avoid the area entirely The more likely result is that a continuous parallel street like
20Th and less continuous but more closely ad~acer_t streets like 22'nd and 25Th will experience heavy
traffic increases or will need to be protected by ann-diversion devices Protecting these streets will
start a domino effect of need to protect stilt other streets
Another proposal similar in nature to that immediatly above involves reconfguring the lane
designations on the northbound approach of ?3'rd to Ocean Park and the southbound approach of
Cloverfield to Pico to emphasize right turn capacity and decrease thru capacity These would be
combined with other measures to prohibit or discourage the eastbound to northbound left turn at Ocean
Park and Cloverfield and the westbound to southbound deft turn at Pico and 23'rd A path through
the corridor remains open but the hope is that the reduction in capacity would cause traffic to go
completely around the neighborhood The more likely result is that 20Th, 22'nd and 2S'th would
receive heavy traffic increases or need to be protected The essential point here is that if the City
modifies the capacity ballance and through movement capability m the 23'rd/Cloverfield corridor,
regardless of whether it carries out the modification through barrier treatments or more subtle capacity
and path restraints, the result wilt be a diversion scheme and the City will need to contemplate a
diversion plan for the entire neighborhood
MEMORA1VDLil1~1
February 7, 1996
Page 4
percentage of dnvers who would be diverted elsewhere by an intensive diversion scheme in
Sunset Park are Santa Monica residents or members of the Santa Monica economic
cottununny -people who "have voice" in the City So an effective diversion scheme on the
scale of the whole Sunset Park neighborhood would likely generate acommunity-wide as
well as a neighborhood opposition
Recognizing all of the circumstances above, I do not believe that an effective plan based primarily on
diversionary strategy can or should be approved for Sunset Park I also believe that if such a plan
were approved, it would continue to be an extremely contentious element in the community and would
not remain in place for long ' I believe that the "behavioral" strategy of file "Staff Pian" is a correct
one for this community where there is a primary desire to somehow mitigate the effects of traffic on
the busiest streets and where there isn't a practical way to sigtufcantly reduce traffic on these busiest
streets
PLAlti DETAILS
As noted above, I agree with the overall behavioral strategy of the plan I also agree with most of
the details shown on the draft plan map (dated 10-9-9~) and offer these comments as refinetnents
Speed Humps
The most prevalent component of this plan is the speed hump In my opinion, by and large the needs
m this neighborhood go beyond what some of the more subtle behavioral devices might reasonably
be expected to achieve and the hump is the most appropriate behavioral device to serve as the core
of the plan But there are a few situations where the Citr• might consider other devices to augment
the basic features of the proposed plan Those are discussed in subsequent sections
Likely streets where humps will be employed include 16Th, 20Th, 23'rd, Cloverfield and 28Th
Given the importance of such streets to emergency vehicle movements across large areas of the Ctty,
and the use of such streets for bus rout=_rgs and significant movements of long wheelbase vehicles, we
suggest that the 22-foot "arterial hump" popularized in Portland be the type utilized on any of the
above streets, any other streets of the designated arterial-collector system where humps are approved,
any primary emergency vehicle egress routes or emergency receiving station access routes or transit
routes On other streets of purely loco! character, use of the mare common 12-14 foot hump would
be appropriate We suggest the City test local street hump shapes in the I2-14 foot long/2.~-3 inch
high range to satisfy itself of the best local street hump dimensions corresponding to the character of
' I should note that there is a different kind of diversionary plan that might be practical in this
neighborhood That would be one which leaves I I'th, I6'th 20Th, 23'rd, CloverfieId and 28Th along
with Lincoln, Pico, Ocean Park and Centirieia all open, diversion schemes would be used to preclude
through traffic on the streets of the sub-neighborhoods bounded by these listed streets However, such
a scheme would be unresponsive to the fact that much of the call for action on traffic management to
this area has come from residents of the streets that would remain unprotected Such a plan doesn't
appear to make any sense m the context of the ongoing discussion
MEMORANDU:4i
February 7, 1995
Page ~
the principal emergency vehicles in use in Santa Monica and to guage reasonable best speeds for such
vehicles as they cross the humps
:vat including 2Q'th street as one of the primary' candidates to be treated with humps appears zo be an
oversight I also suggest indicating some streets as primary candidates to get the "local" humps on
the plan map, logical ones may include 14Th. 21'st. 22'nd and 29Th as well as portions of 11'tfi_
12Th and Pearl Somewhere the map legend should also make clear that other blocks can have humps
if they meet the physical prerequisites and submit a quaiifymg petition That point is clear in the
narrative text the City has circulated Unless tt is made more evident an the plan map, many of those
reacting to the mapped version of the plan may form the impression the plan leaves them unprotected
That might subject the plan to the unfair criticism that "it doesn't do enough"
Platform Intersection
At 23'rd and Ashland, the City might consider a "platform intersection" such as has been employed
to Seattle as an element of the pedestrian crossing improvements slated for this location I would
consider this a manner of implementing the distinctive pavement and signage aspects, not a
replacement for the curb extensions The platform intersection might also be considered at other
locations where there is not a desire to stop traffic flow along a principal street but there is a desire
to have it slow down and have a heightened awareness of potential pedestrian crossings
Gateway Columns
L'~se of features suggestive of gateway portals are believed useful as a means of conveying to drivers
that they are transitioning into a special neighborhood area where the traffic behavior suitable to the
freeways, expressways or commercial arsenals they have lust emerged from is not appropriate
LOCa[Eans where such features might be appropriate to reinforce the effects of other devices tclude
at the proposed curb bulbs on 23'rd and Cloverfield south of Pica and north of Ocean Park We have
previously transmitted a typical design for such columns Because these features depend totally upon
influencing driver psychology for effer_t (as contrast with the real physical or geometric effect exerted
by such devices as humps and curb bulbs) and because they are rather costly, we suggest considering
them at only the most crustal entry points to the neighborhood
More Curb Bulbs
Curb bulbs have many useful aspects They place pedestrians in a pasitwn where they can better see
and be seen by traffic before entering the crossing They shorten the distance over which a pedestrian
is exposed in a crossing By making right turns more difficult, they may discourage through traffic
We wondered, without having studied in enough detail to make concrete recotnmendattons, whether
there weren't more locations in the neighborhood that could benefit from them - at crosswalks
approaching schools and parks for instance One set of locations that did seem to have some obvious
potential is the Pearl approaches to 23'rd and to Cloverfield where inliibiting the ease of right turns
from Pearl might discourage some through traffic on Pearl Carrying the bulbs all the way around
the corners onto the 23'rd and Cloverfield approaches as well might do more to discourage traffic on
1VIEMOR.~NDUM
February 7, 1996
Page 6
Pearl but it might also have undesired operational consequences on those streets The Pearl approach
to Centinela tnight be another useful location for curb bulbs
Other Devices
W'e believe that other devices such as median slow points or serpentine treatments might fit into the
philosophy of the draft plan However, we have not identified any specific locations where they
actually seem appropriate on the streets of this neighborhood
Pearl Street
A local street that has reportedly been a focus of concern but that does not appear to get much obvious
visible attention in the draft plan is Pearl Street We have indicated Pearl above as a possible
candidate for humps. We were particularly referencing the segment between 10Th and 20Th where
block lengths are appropriate to humps, the blocks farther east appear too short for humps We have
also raised the possibility of placing curb bulbs on the Pearl approaches to 23'rd, Cloverfeld and
Centmela Through traffic on the eastern end of Pearl may also be discouraged and attracted away
by the combination of humps on some of the north south streets and the proposed right turn lane
improvement at Pico and Cennnela In aggregate, Pearl could gain considerably more benefit from
traffic management action than is immedietly obvious in a superficial glance at the draft plan
Perimeter Route Improvements
The concept raised by neiehborhood groups of developing Airport ,venue as a forma! public roadway
appears a potentially useful one W~tile the City is not currently in a positron €o comma to developing
Airport Avenue as a fully public arterial roadway, a may be appropriate for the City to include as an
element of this plan an indication of willingness to undertake a study of the feasibiLty of such a
development Such a study could explore physical feasibility, institutional feasibility, environmental
constraints, costs, funding and likely traffic effects It also strikes me that it would be helpful to have
Serpentines {or chicanes) are treatments to increase driver concentration and awareness of the
nature of the street by creating an artificial sinuous alignment of the travel path on a straight (or
relatively straight) street This is done by varying the alignment of the painted centerline stripe and
varying the alignment of the edge of the traveled way through juxtaposition of curb bulbs and parking
zones at various points along a block or series of blocks In radical chicanes the sinuousness is so
abrupt that, though the street is open to two way traffic, vehicles can pass the chicane point in only
one direction at a nine Median slow points, raised islands in the center of the street, have effects
similar to curb bulbs (narrowed traveled way, pedestrian crossing safety improvement) Both
treatments could involve some loss of parking Serpentines can have a large effect on the visual image
of some streets On a street like Pearl, for instance, where open linearity and the regular cadence of
the homes is an essential aspect of the character, the effect could be unsettling Median slow points
may cause more maneuvering difficulties for emergency vehicles and long vehicles than a comparable
treatment involving curb bulbs
MIrMORAI~TDUltii
February 7, 1996
Page 7
as specific a listing as possible of planned unprovements to the perimeter arterial routes affecting this
neighborhood including {especially} those within the City of Los Angeles
This concludes my comments I would be happy to discuss them with you Please recognize that
while I have made suggestions regarding details. I believe the basic structure of the draft plan is the
most reasonable and appropriate approach to the traffic situation m this neighborhood
EXHIBIT C
Speed Hump Policies, Procedures and Criteria
Speed Hump
Policies, Procedures and Criteria
Policies and Procedures
The policies and procedures for installation or removal of speed humps are as follows
1 Requests shall originate from and be circulated by local residents of the
particular street, and shall be presented only on forms obtained from the City
Parking and Traffic Engineer
2 Requests shall include signatures of residents representing tj0 percent or more
of the dwelling units along each block of the street, or if a multi-block segment of
a street is being considered, fi0 percent or more of the dwelling units along the
street segment For mul#i-unit apartment developments, an owner or apartment
manager may represent all units of amulti-family building For multi-unit
condominium developments, the President of the Homeowners' Association or of
the Homeowners' Board, may represent all units in the development
3 Requests shall be accepted only from complete blocks or multiples thereof
4 Local residents may request the removal of an installation by following the
procedure set forth above for requesting an installation
~ When a request is received, the City Parking and Traffic Engineer shall verify
compliance with the Policies and Criteria This procedure includes verification of
signs#ures and gathering of traffic data
6 The City Parking and Traffic Engineer shall notify the residents of the street if
the criteria are satisfied or nat satisfied !f the criteria are satisfied, the residents
will be advised of the approximate date the speed humps will be installed
Installation will be based upon available funding and the scheduling of
construction crews
T If the criteria are satisfied the City Parking and Traffic Engineer may proceed
with the installation of speed humps The City Parking and Traffic Engineer
shat[ notify the City Council, City Manager, Police, lire, Public Works and
Transportation Departments when the installation is complete
8 The primary speed hump for use in the City is the 12 to ~ 4 foot "local" speed
hump However, if requested by Public Safety departments, the City Parking
and Traffic Engineer may install the 22 foot "speed table" in lieu of the '12 to 'f4
foot hump
12
9 If based on traffic sa#ety reasons, the City Parking and Traffic Engineer may
deny the installation of speed humps
Criteria
Speed humps may be installed only at locations which meet the following cnter~a
1 The location shat! be a street predominently fronted by residential development
2 The average traffic volume should be more than 500 vehicles per day
3 The puma facie speed lima shall be 25 miles per hour Or if the City Council has
adopted an ordinance raising the speed limit, 30 miles per hour may be allowed
4 The measured 85th percentile speed should be in excess of five miles per hour
aver the speed Irmit
5 The roadway should not exceed 40 feet in width, and shall not have more than
two lanes of traffic, one in each direction
6 The grade of the roadway should not exceed five percent within 200 feet of the
speed hump
7 There should be no stop signs or traffic signals controlling traffic on the street
within 150 feet of the proposed ~nstailation
8 The installation should not shift or divert traffic to other adtacent streets
13
EXHIBIT D
Draft Residential Traffic Management Handbook
~/
I -~ _ ~y 4 ~~$b
~~ 1
°~~' ~. 14
i ~' i , i
1 1 1~ ~
I~ j i i. ~i
1 I. i ~ ;4 i. ~~
1 ~'~ ~I 11 4 4 t
~: ~ly-~, ~' 'Y
~~ n ~ ~z.~ ~ , !
+ ~ ~wR ?
bl y I i
' 1 ~ ~ v
I ~
,~ti~ p
L,~ -~- ~~
`~~ ~; I
~~
r
ii li li
l ~~ ~; X11
~~ ~~~ ~~ i ~~ ,~f;
~~ ~ ~I ~ 1
ii ~ ii i ~~ I
~.
,,
Diu 1 ~s, ~ ~ ~ I
-~ ,~` a
~ ~
~ `, SEND - :i_: ~'T..-~~~
~Y ~_~
r _ - --
d p -''~' L `- '
~ np f,'
~ - `< <
~ i
c:
~y~F. ~:._,.c ~
`!-
•J'= _
'~ ti` r FI II
AyELNI[ i ,
:I
~IOT~s _ _ ____` ~ ~ ~
1 In addition to spy _
Implementation P===~-
2 Residents an str
qualdying pei~tio
3/6/96
R'JY
S -ROK DIY..
O
0
~ Z
_ ~
z °J'
V
Y ~
a~ ~
~~
aF
W
Z
a
0
Y
City of Santa Monica
o~PFS
`~' _ -.
= w_
_ _ ~-
City of Santa Manrca
I'arkrng and Traffic Engineering Dmsran
1685 Marn Street, Raom 115
Santa Manna, CA 90401
Tel 3 10-458-829 I
^ Y
- 1~ City of Santa Man~ca
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC (MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................ 3
PROCESS AND PROCEDURES ................. 3
MEASURES THAT MAY
IMPACT SPEED
Stop signs 4
Speed Ilmit _ 5
Radar trailer 6
Speed hump 7
Left-tern lane I i
Two-way left-turn Pane 12
Median Island _ 13
Intersection med{an Island 14
Curb extension I S
MEASURES THAT MAY
LIMIT ACCESS
No left turn, no right turn, do not enter I b
One-way _ 17
Preferential permit parking 18
MEASURES THAT MAY HAVE
LIMITED APPLICATION
Semi-diverters one-way) 21
Cul-de-sac 21
Traffic nrcles 21
MEASURES THAT ARE
NOT RECOMMENDED
DiagonaE dlrrerter 22
DiverterslForced turn channeli~ation 22
Rumble strip 22
Miscellaneous non-standard devices _ _ _ 22
Urban Design /Graphics Consultant
PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN
201 Mabery. Studio IDO
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Telephone 310-230-9997
Qty of Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FIAN~BOOK PAGE 3
INTRODUCTION
Thrs publication is offered to assist residents rn addressing some of them Iota!
traffic concerns It contains rnformatron about different traffic control
measures which are available, and lists the advantages and disadvantages of
each device Generally, resrdents can contact the City of Santa Monica
Parkrng and Traffic Engrneerrng Division to request the installation of these
traffic measures When applicable, a procedure may be outlined on how
certain devices may be requested It should be noted, that all of these traffic
control measures have certain criteria or guidelines to determine if they
should be installed Also, the installation of some of these measures may
depend upon available funding
Also included are traffic control measures which are not recommended for
use on City streets Thrs information is provided to document that the Clty
has considered these devices and found they were not appropriate, and that
they may cause or create more problems than they are meant to resolve
The City of Santa Monica also takes this opportunitytoacknowledge the City
of Long $each for their assistance in preparing this publication
PROCESS AND PROCEDURES
In general, the process and procedures for resrdents to obtain consideration
for any ofthe traffic control measures is quite simple A resident or resrdents
should send a written requestto the Parkrng and Traffic Engrneerrng Division
of the Crty of Santa Monaca at the address shown on the front cover Upon
receipt of the letter, the request will he assigned to an engineer who will
conduct the approprrate investrgaton and evaluation Some Investigations
may include the collection of traffic data such as traffic volumes, speed
surveys, field measurements and traffic surveillance A determination will be
made and the requestor(s) will be advised of the results Depending upon
the division's current work load, this process will take between 45 and 60
working days
For certain items such as speed humps, preferential Parkrng ar the construction
of traffic islands, a specific process and procedure is outlined in the discussion
of those items These items viii[ include a process of coordinationg with all
neighborhood resrdents and may involve a petition requirement,
neighborhood meetings and resrdent input Residents should fallow those
procedures In some cases, the City may develop a more comprehensive
plan for mulaple street segments If this is the case, the City will coordinate
a process with neighborhood residents
City of santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FIANDBOOK PAGE 4
~! MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
tb~:~_'
Description; "STOP" sign
Effect an speed: Effect Irmited to w+th~ n approxi mately 20{} feet of the stop sign. Consistently
shown to have little effect an the speed of traffic rn midbloclc locations.
Effect on volume: little effect if the bypassed route is congested or delayed. May have some
effect if use of a short cut is marginal.
Other positive aspects: Speeds are reduced at intersections where pedestrian activity rs expected.
Other negative aspects: Increased noise near stop sign controlled intersection. Especially where
buses and trucks are part of the traffic mix. Corresponding to this is an
increase iaz a+r' pollution emissions.
Discussion: Stop signs do reduce vehicle conflicts, but their misuse may cause reduced
safety by inducing rolling stops or non-compliance at a specific unwarranted
locat+on, and by increasmggeneral disrespect for the stops+gn at al! locations.
Both of these aspects are difficult to measure quantrtativeiy.
Primary criteria: Some of the key factors to determine if stop signs should be installed include
traffic volumes, accident history, field conditions, proximity to schools and
use as a route to school.
City of Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FIANDBOOK
`' ~ MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
`S~EEt~=
_ ~_~
Description: Speed limit sign
PAGE 5
EfiFect on speed: Signing generally has a negligible impact on actual operating speeds. The
majority of people drive at a speed which they eons ider to be reasonable and
prudent for the prevailing conditions.
Effect on volume: None
Otlter pvsitrve aspects: None
Other negative aspects: in theory, if speed limit is established at or near the level of current
operational practice, it ~s not addressing "the problem," as perceived by
residents If a speed limit is set at an artificially low level, it may build
unrealistic expectations on the part of residents, and may not be legal.
Discussion: The Califorrna Vehicle Code {state l_aw) sets a 25 mph "prima fade" speed
limit automatically for all residential streets. Signing is not required for
enforcement of the prima facie speed hmitto occur and holdup in court. In
some situations, signing is advisable to notify motorists of a change of speed
limit across an intersection, and such may occur on the local residential
street system. Negligible impact on speeds suggests that overuse may be
counterproductive. A fewwellplaced signs are more likelyto be noticed and
heeded than a proliferation of randomly placed ones.
Primary criteria: A key factor for the installation of a speed limit sign is the determination that
it i5 advisable to notify ar remind motorists of the speed limit.
City of Santa Monica
RESiDENTlAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FiAN4BOOK
'~pEEP
~ ~rM~T
25.
~M
.~..~
~: ~
MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
PAC+i= 4~
Description: Portable radar speed metercapableafineasurmgvehiclespeedandgraphically
displaying the speed of the motorist.
Effect on speed: Effect limited to within sight distance of radar trader. In general, no lasting
effect or impact on actual operating speeds of repeat users. May help
increase motorist awareness of posted speeds.
Effect on volume: None
Other positive aspects: Speeds may be reduced during short intervals where the radar trader is
located. An effective public relations and educational tool.
Other negative aspects: Nat an enforcement tool. Not effective on multi-lane roadways with
significant traffic volumes due to limited ability to differentiate between
multiple approaching vehicles.
Discussion: Radar trailers are most useful in public awareness and education and for
maintaining a high profile on local roadways. in general, it is not effective in
modifying long-term habits or modifying a driver's perception of safe,
reasonable speeds. In order to obtain results, selective enforcement should
take place afterthe trailer is removed. The enforcement, though shortterm,
will curtail speed violations for a period of time.
Primary criteria: Some of the key factors to determine where the trailer should be used
include the speed of existing traffic and the availability of the radar trailer
City of Santa Monica
RESIGENTlAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HAN~BQ4K PAGE 7
MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
Speed Bump Speed Hump
Description: A gentle mound of asphalt paving placed across a roadway for the purpose
of causing motorists to reduce them operating speeds while driving on that
roadway. The horizontal and vertical dimensions are closely controlled to
optam,ze the desired effect {slowing) while m,rnmizing any potential adverse
effects (severe driver discomfort, loss of vehicle control, noise, vibration).
Also called "pavement undulations", speed humps are normally installed in
groupings along a length of street. Speed humps are nat like speed bumps
normally encountered ,n shopping center parking lots.
Effect on speed: Exper,ence ,n other agenc,es nearly always has shown reduced speeds close
to the hump. Overall route effectiveness varies with hump spacing and
height. Lower hump heights generally resulted rn a more consistent speed
while the higher hur»ps showed a pattern of braking/accelerat,ng, brakrr~gl
accelerating driver behavior
Effect on volume: As or:rtlir?ed for resrdenttal streets, no traffic diversion rs expected. Diversion
is not the purpose of speed humps and an undesirable diversion of traffic to
another residential street is a negative factor m installing speed humps. Their
purpose rs to address speed.
Other positive aspects: Speed humpsaregainingacceptanceinmanySauthernCalrforniacommunities.
As previously indicated, chey are not at all like the shopping center "speed
bumps" which can jolt the driver severely, cause vehicle damage, and create
a potential loss of control
Other negative aspects: The traffic diversion aspect of speed humps has caused at least a few
instances of hump removal in nearby cities. The cost of installing speed
Bumps and the accompanyingsrgns and pavement messages is srgnificantand,
if overused, could become a substantial budgetary item Some public safety
departments have been strongly opposed to their use, however, Sans
Monica's Fire and Poiiee Departments do not oppose speed humps, but have
expressed concern about their uncontrolled proliferation
Primary criteria: The following pages discuss the policies, procedures and criteria for the
installation of speed humps
City of Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK PAGE b
Speed Hump
Policies, Procedures and Criteria
Policies and Procedures
The policies and procedures for installation or removal of speed humps
I CRITERIA FOR SPEED HUMPS are as follows
Speed humps may be installed I
only at locations which meet the ? I Requests shall originate from and be circulated by local residents of the
following criteria particular street, and shall be presented only on forms obtained from the
City Parking and Traffic Engineer
`: A) The location shall be a street 2 Requests shall include signatures of residents representing 60 percent or
predominently fronted by more of the dwelling units alarg each block of the street, or if a multi-
residential development block segment of a street is being considered, 60 percent ar more of the
B) The average traffic volume should dwelling units along the street segment For multi-unit apartment
be more than 500 vehicles per developments, an owner or apartment manager may represent all units
~ day of amulti-family building For multi-unit condominwm developments, the
President of the Homeowners' Association or of the Homeowners'
C) The prima facie speed I1mit shall Board, may represent all units in the development
be 23 miles per hour Or if the
3
Requests shall be accepted only from complete blocks ar multiples
City Council has adopted an thereof
ordinance raising the speed limit,
30 miles per hour may be 4 Local residents may request the removal of an installation by followingthe
allowed procedure set forth above for requesting an installation.
D} The measured 85th percentile 5 When a request is received, the City Parking and Traffic Engineer shall
speed should be in excess of five verify compliance with the Policies and Criteria This procedure includes
miles per hour over the speed venficanon of signatures and gathering of traffic data
limit b The City Parking and Traffic Engineer shall notify the residents of the
E} The roadway should not exceed street if the criteria are satisfied or not satisfied If the criteria are
satisfied, the residents will be advised of the approximate date the speed
40 feet in width, and shall not humps will be installed Instalfation will be based upon available funding
have more than two lanes of and the scheduling of construction crews
traffic, one in each direction
7 If the criteria are satisfied the City Parking and Traffic Engineer may
F) The grade of the roadway should proceed with the installation of speed humps The Gty Parking and Traffic
not exceed five percent within Engineer shall notify the City Council, City Manager, Police, Fire, Public
200 feet of the speed hump Works and Transportation Departments when the installation i5 com-
G) There should be no stop signs or I plete
traffic signals controlling traffic on ? S Tie primary speed hump for use in the City is the 12 to 14 foot "local"
the street within 150 feet of the speed hump However, rf requested by Public Safety departments, the
proposed installation Gty Parking and Traffic Engineer may install the 22 foot "speed table" in
H) The installation should not shift lieu of the (~ to 14 foot hump
or divert traffic to other adjacent 9 If based on traffic safety reasons, the City Parking and Traffic Engineer may
streets deny the installation of speed humps
City of Santa Man~ca
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 9
PETITION FOR SPEED HVMP
City of Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 1-IANDBOQK
PAGE 10
MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
s~ ~
Qescription: A designated traffic lane at intersections or driveways providing exclusively
for left-turns and u-turns
Effect on speed: May tend to increase speeds due to reduced numbers of vehicles stopping
in the through lanes to complete left turns and a degree of separation
provided between vehicles traveling in opposite directions. However, can
also reduce speeds if through lanes are eliminated or substantially reduced
in width.
Effect an valuate: Volume impacts could range from increases to decreases depending on the
specific circumstances of the installation. When combined with parking
reductions and no lane reductions, volumes will likely increase. Lane width
and Lane reductions could result in reduced volumes.
Other positive aspects: Less impact on through traffic Reduction in potential for rear end accidents.
If applied to large residential streets, through traffic may feel more confined
ray parking and lane lines, potentially reducing travel speeds, capacity and
possibly volumes
Other negative aspects: May divert traffic to other streets if through lanes are eliminated. May give
motorists a mare protected or +solated feel when traveling m through lanes
potentially reducing the perception of a residential neighborhood Typically
requires elimination of on-street parking within turn lane area.
Discussion: Left-turn lanes are often used on roadways to provide convenient and safe
access to driveways. Applications in residential environments are not
common. Installations may help to increase capacity at signalized or multi-
way stop controlled intersections
Priatairy criteria: Some of the key factors to determine if a left-turn lane should be installed
include existingtraffic volumesand intersection turningmovements,roadway
width, accident history and parking or lane reductions
City of Santa Mohica
RE51dENT1AL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HAN~BO~IC PAGE 11
MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
Description: Twa sets of solid yellow and broken yellow Imes separated by a minimum
of 9 to 14 feet between traffic lanes in opposing directions, to provide a
continuous lane for left turns in both dlrectlans.
Effect on speed: May tend to increase speeds due to reduced numbers of vehicles stopping
in the through Panes to complete left turns and a degree of separation
provided between vehicles traveling in opposite dlrectlans. However, can
also reduce speeds if through lanes are eliminated or substantially reduced
width.
Effect on volume: Volume impacts could range from increases to decreases depending on the
specific circumstances of the installation When combined with parking
reductions and no lane reductions, volumes will likely increase. Lane width
and lane reductions could result in reduced volumes.
Other positive aspects: Less impact on through traffic Reduction in potential far rear end accidents.
If applied to large residential streets, through traffic may feel more confined
by parking and lane lines potentially reducing travel speeds, capaaty and
possibly volumes. More convenient access to multiple driveway
Other negative aspects: May divert traffic to other streets May give motorists a more protected or
isolated feel when traveling in through lanes potentially reducing the
perception of a residential neighborhood.
Discussion: Twa-way left-turn lanes are often used an arterial roadways, especially in
commercial areas to provide convenient, safe and flexible access to multiple
driveways. Applications in residential environments are not common, but
may be appropriate under certain circumstances. Results of providing two-
way left-turn lanes to reduce roadway width or eliminate through lanes wi11
vary significantly depending on the location. Potential installations should be
evaluated very carefully
Primary criteria: Similar to left-turn lanes.
Glty a( Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANpBOO1C PAGE 12
MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
~~ #~=
Description: A physical battler typically found on major streets which can effectively
eliminate left turns unto cross streets, and which can also ellminate local
street straight through cross traffic.
Effect or: speed: May tend to discourage aspeed-prone element of the driving population
from the local street. Left-turns onto local streets should also be reduced,
thereby enhancing flow characteristics, including speed, on the maior or
non-local street.
IEffect on volume: WIII reduce local street volume to the extent that the moves eliminated
contributed to that volume.
Other positive aspects: Less Impact on the major or non-local street as it helps its efficiency, which
In turn makes intrusion into neighborhoods less attractive. The resulting
right-turn-in, right-turn-out operat+on should also be an enhancement to
safety.
Other negative aspects: May overload other locations where left-turn opportunities continue to
exist This could negatively affect both safety and efficiency of the maior or
non-local street This treatment will also inconvenience local residents who
wil! be forced to drive longer more circwtous paths to reach thetr homes.
Discussion: Median islands are a well established mechanism Care must be taken along
the non-local street that safety and congestion problems are not created
elsewhere, and that drivers are not encouraged to use private property
(parking lots, etc.) to assist in turningaround or otherwise circumventmgthe
intent of the barrier. A median barrier can take many forms, including a
closely spaced row of flexible delineator posts, a series of pre-cast curb
sections affixed to the pavement, or an asphalt or concrete curbed island
with or without decorative landscaping and surface treatment. Costs vary
widely among the options.
Primary criteria: Some of the key factors to determine if a median island should be installed
include support by local residents, impact on access, impact at intersections
where left turns are still allowed, roadway width and cost,
City of santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL, TRAFFlG MANAGEMENT !-IANbBO~K PAGE 13
MEASURES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
Description; A narrow, painted median Island onapporoachesto local streetintersections.
Effect on speed: Slight slowing may result
Effect on volume: Insignificant, unless the number of lanes is reduced (which is not likely to be
the case on a residential street}.
Other positive aspects: None
Other negative aspects: May result in loss of curbside parkrng.
Discussion: The psychological effect of median islands may be their most important
attribute.
Primary criteria: Some of the key factors to determine If Intersection median islands are
appropriate include roadway width (minimum I 0 to I I -foot travel lanes are
required with aminimumtwo-foot wide median) and Impact on parking.
Effect on speed: May tend to discourage aspeed-prone element of the driving population
from the local street Left-turns onto local streets should also be reduced,
thereby enhancing flow characteristics on the major or non-local street
City of Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANI?BOOK PAGE 14
~ ~-
MEASt1RES THAT MAY IMPACT SPEED:
'-~ a
~~ ~-"~~
r
Description: Narrowing of a street at an intersection or mrdblock location +n order to
reduce the roadway width by construction of a sidewalk widening ("curb
bulb" or "extension")
Ellett on speed: Slight slowing is normally the result.
Effect on volume: Insignificant, unless the number of lanes is reduced which is not likely on a
residential street).
Other positive aspects: Shorter pedestrian crossing distances and better motorist-pedestrian cross
visibility. Creates added streetscape area for pedestrian activities or
landscaping. Provides an opportunity for gateway treatment to define a
neighborhood Allows signs to be placed closer to driver's Tine of vision.
Qther negative aspects: Patent+al eollis+on obstacle for motorists. May +mpede b+cycle r~obrlity and
safety. May result in loss of curbside parking. Can impede legitimate truck
movements (fire apparatus, refuse vehicles) May require reworking of
street drainage, which can be difficult and costly.
Discussion: The psychological effect of curb extensions may be their most important
attribute. Used on several streets in an area, they may serve to define the
outer limits of a neighborhood, particularly if a urnfied design concept is
employed.
Primat7r criteria: Some of the key factors to determine if curb extensions are appropriate
include roadway width (minimum ! 0 to I I -foot travel lanes are required),
impact on parking, impact on turning movements, and impact on Gty
services such as street cleaning and waste collection.
-~- - --
~-
City of Sar~ta Monica
RESFQENTIAL TRAFFIC MANACaEMENT FIANQBOQIC PAGE IS
~-~~~=- ~ MEASURES THAT MAY LIMN ACCESS:
i - } ~.~;
~.x1 ~- ~°~ ~ - it
~. ~.~I F _
~- ~ 7 ` ~ ~`
Description: Turning prohibitions or restrictions may be accompanied by a sign panel
indicating specific days and or hours of applicability. A combination of these
signs may appear at a location, depending on which movement(s) is {are)
intended for exclusion
Effect on speed: May tend to exclude aspeed-prone element of the driving population,
otherwise no effect In the case of turn prohibitions, the speed on the main
street may increase slightly as a result of reduced intersection conflicts.
Effect on volume: Significant, though not total, exclusion of indicated movements may have a
significant positive impact on total volume
Other positive aspects: In the case of turn prohibitions, safety may increase on origin street (often
a major or non-local). Does not impede emergency vehicles, as they can
readily violate the restriction.
Other negative aspects: Prohibition is sublectto some dehberateviolation, particularlyat Iowvolume
local-local intersections within the neighborhood where police presence is
infrequent Safety may decrease at other locations if drivers are forced to
make hazardous movements to compensate for restricted movements
Discussion: Can be effective, but placement and use needs to be carefully analyzed so that
desirable and necessary moves are not unduly restricted. Area residents
need to understand that turn restrictions apply to them as well as to
outsiders
Primary criteria: Some of the key factors to determine if turn prohibitions are applicable
include available adjacent arterial streets, impact on adjacent residential
streets, support of residents and impact on adjacent intersections where
turns conyinue to be allowed
City of Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK
MEASURES THAT MAY L~M~7 ACCESS:
ENE ~~Y ~~ `~~
PAGE I b
Description: Signingta designate streets or segments of streets as "one way" (sometimes
in a maze pattern) to delllyerateiy deter through movements.
Effect an speed: one-way operation may encourage increased speeds, although intentional
discontinuities may mitigate this effect somewhat
Effect on volume: May reduce total volume an subject street, but care must be taken not to
shift diverted traffic to another nearby local street
Other positive aspects: Allows wrong way entry 6y emergency vehicles. Safety is inherently greater
on one-way segments, but care must be taken to handle end treatments
properly
Other negative aspects: Adverse travel distance may result for local residents. Restriction is subject
to intenrlonal vlolar~on Tao many intentional drscontinurtles can confuse
service vehicles and residents.
Discussion: Can be effective, but placement and use needs to be carefully analyzed sa that
desirable or necessary moves are not unduly restricted Area residents need
to understand that one way restriction applies to them as well as "outsiders".
Primary criteria: Some of the key factors to determine if one way streets are appropriate
include roadway width, impact on adjacent streets, impact on areawrde
traffic patterns and support of residents
City oP San#a Monlca
RESlDENTlAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FlAN~BOOK PAGE ET
MEASURES THAT MAY LIMIT ACCESS:
Description: A program which allows a resident to purchase a permit which exempts a
vehicle from the posted parking restrictions on the street.
Effect on speed: None
Effect on volume: None, unless a reduction rn circulating traffic is experienced as would-be
long term porkers learn of the unavailability of long term parking on
neighborhood local streets.
Other frositive aspects: Eliminates a substantial element of "outsider" parkrng, such as students {near
learning institutions) and employees (near commercial areas) The
inconvenience to residents assoaated with simple time limit parking is
eliminated
Other negative aspects: Depending on the posted restrictions, may not eliminate all customer
parking in areas abutting retail districts Does not eliminate long term
storage of vehicles by residents since owners can purchase permits for them.
Discussion: Although same residents have complained about the fee for permits
{currently $ i 5 per vehicle per year), the program has largely been successful.
Prirrlary criteria: The following pages include information, procedures, policies, criteria and
petition for preferential parking zones.
G~ty of Santa Monica
RESIQENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANQ600iC PAGE k8
ESTABLISHING A
PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE
Preferential parking zones are parking zones rn residential areas that
speufically hmrt on-street parking to permit holders The Preferentral
parking zone may be a total or partial restriction with various times that the
particular zone rs rn effect
The designation process rs initiated bya petition signed by residents Irving in
two thuds of the dwelling units comprising not less than 50 percent of the
developed frontage of the area proposed for designation to the Gty Parking
and Traffic Engineer Upon receipt of the petition the Crty Parkrng and Traffic
Engineer shall verify the petition and undertake surveys or studres necessary
to determine whether an area should be designed a preferential parkrng
zone
The surveys and studres shall determine that.
Non-resrdent vehicles substantially and regularly interfere with the use
of the ma~orrty of available public street parkrng_
2 Non-resrdentvehicles interference occurs at regular and signrfcantdaily
or weekly intervals
3 Non-resrdent vehrcles parked in the area of the proposed zone cause or
are the source of unreasonable Horse, traffic hazards, environmental
pollution, or devaluation of rea! property m the area of the proposed
zone
4 No unreasonable displacement of non-resident vehicle will divert into
surrounding neighborhoods
5 A shortage of reasonably available and convenient residential related
parkrng spaces exisu in the area of the proposed zone
b Alternative solutions are not feasible or practical
If the proposed preferential parking zone meets the criteria, the Gty Staff
will recommend to the City Council adoption of the preferential parking
zone City Council must adopt an ordinance to establish a preferential
parkrng zone
The cost of the preferential parkrng permits shall cover the cost of
establishing, maintaining, and enforcing the requested preferential parking
zone The permit fees will be set by City Council at the time of parkrng zone
designation
The time required to complete aH surveys or studies takes four (4) to six {b}
months Upon completion, if favorable, it will take another three (3) to six
(b} months to go through the ordinance process to designate a particular
zone
City of Santa Monica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMF=NT HANDBOOK PAGE 19
PETITION FOR
PREFERENTIAL PARKING
Gity of Santa Monica
RESIDEI`ITIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 20
MEASURES THAT MAY HAVE
LIMITED APPLICATION
Under certain circumstances, these devices may be considered on low
volume streets {less than 500 vehicles per day}, as a means to restrict traffic
from adlacentrion-residential from entering the residential area There are
no specific criteria and each location will beevaluated on acase-by-case basis
SEMI-DIVERTER
A physical barrier across half a street, usually at an intersection, which
precludes movement in one direction but not the other
CUL-D E-SAC
Complete closure of a street either at an mtersealon, or at a midblock
location
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
A small circular island placed in the center of an existing local street
intersection, thus creating a small "roundabout" or "rotary "
City of Santa ir7onica
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT HANIaBOOK PAGE 21
MEASURES NOT RECOMMENDED FOR USE
This Information is being provided to answer questions that may be asked
about these devices Although these measures are not recommended for
use on City of Santa Monica streets, this information is provided to
document that they were considered and evaluated and found to be
inappropriate
DIAGONAL DIVERTER
Barrier between diagonally opposite corners ofafotir-(egged mtersecnon, thus creatingtwo
unconnected L-shaped intersections
DIVERTERSIFORCED-TURN CHANNELIZATION
A traffic island speuficaNy designed to force certain traffic move(s) and prohibit other(s)
The two above mentioned devices are not recommended for use on City of
Santa Monica streets These devices shift traffic volumes and other related
traffic conditions to adjacent residential streets, and therefore, do not
address the problems, but simply shift the problems to others This is not
an acceptable result of implementing residential traffic managementtechniques.
RUMBLE STRIP
Rough or patterned section of pavement, created by asphalt strips or raised ceramic
pavement markers for the purpose of alerting dnvers of a specific control device (e g
unexpected step sign) or a particularly unique condition (e g sharp curve)
This device is not recommended for use on Gty of Santa Monica streets
since it is not a viable residential neighborhood treatment due to the noise
and vibration created
MISCELLANEOUS NON-STANDARD DEVICES
Slow", Children at Play" or odd-value speed advisory signs
These devices are not recommended because these measures produce no
lasting effect and they are not recognized as official traffic control devices
The novelty effect wears off quickly and they no longer command the
attention of repeat users of the street In addition, lack of legal meaning or
established guidelines for use can lead to agency exposure to liability A
"Slow" sign by itself is too ambiguous to have any effect, and, for that reason,
is not approved for use as a primary message The often requested "children
at play" sign has the potential of being misinterpreted by residents who may
see it as official approval of street playing, and may therefore lead to liability
exposure