Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Zoning Ordinance Amdmt
ZOA 05-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Establish TN -R standards and amend several other sections of Title 1 1, Meridian City Code, commonly known as the Unified Development Code (UDC) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Objections NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Memo from David Turnbull Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 2/2/06 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533; WW SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance (UDC) Text Amendment ZOA-05-002 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to establish TN -R standards and amend several other sections of Title 11, Meridian City Code, commonly known as the Unified Development Code (UDC). l.. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, the City of Meridian, has applied for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to amend several sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The primary purpose of this application is to establish Traditional Neighborhood District standards and to clean up various other sections of the Unified Development Code. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Below, staff has provided detailed analysis regarding the requested Zoning Ordinance Amendment application. Staff recommends approval of the subject a lication ZOA-05-002 . 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Recommend Denial I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number ZOA-05-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Recommend Approval I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number ZOA-05-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 with the following modifications: (add any proposed modifications.) Recommend Continuance I move to continue File Number A7--05-065, to (insert specific hearing date), and direct staff to make the following changes: (insert comments here.) 4. APPLICATION FACTS a. Site Address/Location: The proposed changes will effect the development process City-wide. b. Applicant/Representative: Anna Canning, Planning Director, City of Meridian Planning Department Applicant's Statement/Justification: In September of 2005, the City of Meridian adopted a new zoning ordinance that provided standards for the orderly growth and development of the City of Meridian. This new zoning ordinance, Title 11 of City Code, is known and cited as the Unified Development Code (UDC). The standards for Traditional Neighborhood Residential were left out of the initial UDC adoption in order to allow staff and the Process Improvement Group additional time to work with the Fire Department on their concerns regarding alley accessed developments and reduced street widths. The primary purpose of this text amendment is to add those standards. UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Additionally, after having a brief time of implementation, staff has found several sections of the UDC that need to be amended. The subject application will clean up some of the text within the UDC that are either unclear, conflict with other sections of the UDC, or have not been specifically addressed in the current ordinance. Staff believes that the subject UDC text amendment will allow staff, developers, and the general public to more efficiently use the provisions of the UDC. Staff believes that the new, revised standards for development established in the UDC better reflect the current needs of the community. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a Unified Development Code amendment as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: January 16 and 30, 2006 c. A public service announcement was issued regarding this application. 6. COMMENTS MEETING On December 21, 2005, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. None of the agencies or departments listed above provided comments at the December 215` meeting. However, the Fire Department and Police Department do have concerns with some of the proposed standards to the UDC. As of the print deadline for this report, Planning Staff had not received any written comment from either the Police or Fire Departments. Staff anticipates that one or both of those agencies may present comments to the Commission and/or Council regarding the subject application. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS Staff finds that the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment complies with and furthers the goals and objectives of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. There are a number of actions called for in the Comprehensive Plan which either does not address or are made easier to accomplish through the proposed amendment. Some of the specific Objectives and Actions that support the proposed amendment are listed below: Chapter IV • Goal 1, Obj, B, #2 — Amend zoning ordinance and map to ensure wide variety of housing types can be developed and property zoned and land is available. • Goal II, Obj. D, #14 --- Develop incentives to develop higher density housing throughout the Old Town neighborhood and in dispersed developments. Chapter V • Goal II, Obj. A, #7 - Establish thematic or uniform signage. • Goal III, Obj. B, #1 — Draft appropriate community design ordinances. ChaUter VI • Goal II, Obj. B, #9 — The City should review its current regulations for issues that would prohibit or discourage the type of mixed-use, transit -oriented development desired within transit overlay districts. Chapter VII UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 • Goal 1, Obj. C, #1 -- Amend the zoning ordinance and map to implement this plan (Comprehensive Plan) • Goal 1, Obj. C, #2 — Develop standards for integrating medium -to -high density residential into existing subdivision development. • Goal 1, Obj. A, #5 — Amend the zoning ordinance and map to implement the provisions of this plan. • Goal IV, Obj. C, #7 — Provide for non-exclusive residential zoning that allows for low - impact neighborhood commercial areas to develop in residential districts. Develop standards to regulate neighborhood commercial uses to minimize the impact on the integrity of the residential district. • Goal IV, Obj. C, #9 — Adopt land use designations which will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels. • Goal IV, Obj. C, #10 — Support a variety of residential categories (low, medium and high-density single-family, multi -family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. • Goal V, Obj. A, #13 — Review ordinances or other policy statements which affect housing development and consolidate to avoid confusion and use of conflicting policies and requirements. • Goal V, Obj. C, #5 — Eliminate vague/unclear standards in development ordinances. Staff finds that the subject ZOA application is harmonious with and in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Generalized Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Existing Urban". 8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE/ZONING ORDINANCE Provided below are existing and proposed sections of the UDC, which staff is proposing to amend: Item #1: TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS 11-2D-1 (PURPOSE STATEMENT) C: TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (TN -R): The purpose of the TN -R District is to provide for a variety of residential land uses including attached and detached single-family residential, duplex, townhouse, and multifamily. A TN -R District includes open spaces and promotes pedestrian activity through well-designed and varied streetscapes that also provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic. Most dwelling units should be accessed from alleys. The maximum density of the TN -R District is fifteen (15) units per acre. The minimum density is 4*4-6) eight 8 units per acre. Density should decrease away from the center and closer to conventional residential districts. The TN -R District should be generally located: adjacent to a TN -C District, along a transit corridor, or within a mixed use neighborhood. For the purposes of this Title, the term residential district shall also include the Traditional Neighborhood Residential District. In conjunction with the change from a minimum density of 6 to 8 dwelling units per acre, the standards table clarifies that this is a net density, not gross density, Staff believes it is therefore necessary to add a definition for net density to UDC 11-1A-1: UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 DENSITY, NET The ratio of the total number of dwelling units within a development divided by the total area, excluding streets; alleys; easements; waterways; common spaces, and any other area not devoted to the residential lots. Staff recommends that the existing table in Section I1 -2D -6A be deleted and the following tables and standards added. A, Dimensional Standards: TABLE 11-2D-2: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR ALLEY ACCESSED PROPERTIES IN THE TN -R DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL'STANDAR.DS TN -R Minimum density DU`/acre 8 net Maximum density 15 net Minimum front setback' in feet 10 Minimum rear setback' (in feet) without parking pad2.3 5 to garage and/or living area with parking pad 20 to garage 5 to living area Minimum side setback (in feet) Property lines adjoining unattached walls 4 Property lines adjoining attached walls4 0 Minimum side street setback' in feet Alley 5 Local street 10 Collectors 20:8 parkway with Class II trees and 5 sidewalk Street landscape buffer in feet Locals 8 parkway with Class II trees5 Collector5,6 13:8 parkway with Class II trees and 5 sidewalk Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height in feet 40 *DU= dwelling unit 1Measured from back of sidewalk and/or paved surface of alley as applicable. 2A parking pad is an off-street. parking areawith minimum dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet. 3 This is a build -to setback. 40n any given property, there shall be no more than two property lines that have 0 -foot setbacks. 5Measured from back of curb to face of sidewalk for parkways and to property line for all others. 6These are standards for properties where the front yard''of the property'adjoins the street landscape buffer. and the units take access from an alley. UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE NEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 TABLE 11-20-3: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR STREET ACCESSED PROPERTIES IN THE TN -R DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL. STANDARDS TN -R Minimum density DU*/acre) 8 net Maximum density 15 net Minimum front setback' (in feet) 20 to garage 10 to living area Minimum rear setbacks in feet 12 Minimum side setback (in feet) Property lines adjoining unattached walls Property lines adjoining attached walls2 4 0 Minimum side street setbacks in feet Alley 5 Local street 10 Collector3 20 Street landscape buffer in feet Local3 8 parkway with Class II trees Collector3.4 20:8 parkway with Class II trees and 5 sidewalk Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height in feet 40 *DU= dwelling unit 'Measured from back of sidewalk and/or paved surface of alley as applicable. 20n any given property, there shall be no more than two property lines that have Odoot setbacks: 'Measured from back of curb to face of sidewalk for parkways and to property line for all others. 4These are standards for properties where the rear, or side yard of the property adjoin the street Ian'dsca a buffer. E. Options far Street Sections in the TN -R District: The width of the allowed street section shall be determined by how the properties _are accessed and whether or not a parking pad is provided that has minimum dimensions of twen1y feet 20' by twenty feet 20' as measured from the paved surface of the alley or street to the face of the garage door. 1. For alley accessed properties that provide a parking pad,the following shall applT. a. The parking pad must meet the dimensional standards noted in Section 11 -2D -6E. b. All alleys shall have a twenty -foot 20' right-of-way with a minimum of sixteen feet 16' of paying. c. Thea licant shall be allowed to have a reduced street section of twenty-nine feet 29' measured from back -of -curb to back -of --curb with parking on both sides. 2. For alley accessed properties that do not PTOvide a parking j2ad,the following shall apply: a. All alleys shall have a twenty -foot 20' right-of-way with a minimum of sixteen feet 16' of paving. UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 b. The applicant shall provide a street section of thirty-three feet 33' measured from back -of - curb to back -of -curb) with parking on both sides. The requirement for off-street panking as set forth in Section 11-3C-6 is waived for alley accessed properties in such circumstances. c. The applicant may request a street section of twenty-nine feet (29') (measured from back -of - curb to back -of -curb) with parking on one side where the street only provides residential access on one side of the street. For example, where one side of the street has homes on it and the other side of the street is a dedicated open sace lot. Such request shall be approved by Council with the preliminary plat. The requirement for off-street parking as set forth in Section 11-3C-6 is waived for alley accessed properties in such circumstances. 3. For street accessed properties, the following shall apply: a. Although street accessed pLgpertics are allowed in this district it is anticipated that onl properties on the perimeter of a TN -R development would be street accessed. The applicant shall demonstrate that the design meets the purpose statement of the TN -R district. b. All street accessed properties must provide aparking pad as detailed in Section 11 -2D -6E. c. The applicant shall be allowed to have a reduced street section of twenty-nine feet 29' (measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb) with parking on both sides. 4. Block lengths shall meet the standards as set forth in Section 11 -6C -3F2. Although block lengths are allowed to exceed five hundred feet (5.00')when a pedestrian pathway is used to break up the block, it is anticipated that most blocks will not exceed the five hundred -foot (500') requirement. The applicant shall demonstrate that the design meets the purpose statement of the TN -R district. F. Fences. In addition to the standards as set forth in Section 11 -3A -7A, the following restrictions shall apply to fencing within the TN -R district: 1. Front yard. Front yard fences shall meet the following standards: a. Open vision; b. No greater than three feet (3') in height; and c. Wrought iron or material of similar quality and appearance. 2. Side yard. a. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line shall only be allowed where the side setback is five feet (5') or greater. The portion of a side yard fences that extend from the building to the side yard property line shall be setback two feet (2') behind the enclosed portion of the front of the building. b. Side yard fences that extend from one building to an adjoining building are allowed where the adjoining houses have use easements on the side yard area. Such fences shall be setback two feet (2') behind the enclosed portion of the front of the building adjoining the fence. 3. Rear yard of_alley_accessed properties. Fences shall be setback a minimum of seven feet (7') from the alley (measured from back of paved surface of the alley). UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING .DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 4. The maximum fence height in the rear and side yards shall not exceed six feet(6'),subject to the provisions set forth in Sections 2 and 3 below. 5. On corner properties, the maximum fence height in the required street side yard shall be six feet 6' above the grade as measured at the roe line and the minimum setback shall be ten feet (10') from the street side prp operty line. See Figure 11-3A-3._ 6. Where the rear yard of one properly adjoins the front yard of another propeLty, the fence along the rear and side yards where they adjoin the adjacent front yard shall be flush or angled at forty-five 45 degrees to provide continufty with the a&ining fence and P17operly line. See Figure 11-3A- 3. 7. Additional height shall be allowed for arbors arches and/or other architectural a urtenances extending over gates and/or other en was Such a urtenances shall not exceed five feet 5' in width and/or ei hg t feet (8) in height. 8. Additional height shall be allowed for. gate posts, Such gateposts shall not exceed eight feet 8' in height._ G. Lighting. In addition to the standards as set forth in Section 11-3A-11 the following standards shall apply within the TN -R district: All dwelling units shall have a minimum of two 2 lights at the front of the unit. All dwelling units on alley accessed properties shall have a minimum of two 2 li hts alon the alley. All lighting required in this section shall be on a hotocell that activates the lighting at dusk and turns it off at dawn. Item #2: FENCES Staff is proposing a number of additional standards for the fence regulations below. These standards have been reviewed and approved by the UDC Process Improvement Group (PIG). 11 -3A -7C. Additional standards in the R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15, R-40, L -O, O -T, and TN R TN -C Districts: 5. Side yard fences that follow the sideand ro er line shall onlybe allowed where the side setback is five feet 5' or greater. Side yard fences that extend from one building to an adjoining building are allowed where the adjoining houses have use easements on the side yard area. 6. Additional height shall be allowed for arbors arches and/or other architectural appurtenances extendin over ates and/or other en a s Such a urtenances shall not exceed five feet 5' in width and/or eight feet 8' in height. 7. Additional height shall be allowed for gate posts. Such gateposts shall not exceed eight feet 8' in height. 8. Fence standards for the TN -R District are as set forth in Section 11 -2D -6F. Item #3: MISCELLANEOUS UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Planning Staff is proposing a number of edits to correct minor errors we have noticed in the UDC over the past few months. These have not been reviewed by the UDC PIG prior to submitting the application, g Item #1: STREET, COLLECTOR street ro osed as an urban collector or desi Hated as an urban collector on the most recent Re- g sociation of Southwest Tonal Trans nation Plan for Ada Count ado ted b the Communit Plannin AsIdaho or the Cit of Meridian Com rehensive Plan that carries traffic from local streets to arterials. ENTERTAINMENT, ADULT Adult entertainment shall be as defined in Title 3 Chapter 10 of the Meridian City Code and shall include adult theaters establishments with adult arcade machines and cate o A adult stores, Item #2: 11 -3A -6B3: Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, and drains shall be fenced with a nn an o en vision fence at least six feet.... Item #,3.- TABLE 3:TABLE 11-5A-1: DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY BY APPLICATION Vacation, utilities exempt per Idaho Code §50-1306A(5) NONE $ D A Vacation ri ht-of-wa � � p� Item #4.- 11 -5A-3132: 4:11-5A-3B2: Prior to the commencement of any substantive changes to the application requirements, the Director shall submit the changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission to be considered fft_a� k_a`_Fig as an a ends item at a noticed hearin . Item #5: 11 -6C -3F1: In the residential districts, no block face shall be more than seven hundred fifty feet (750') in length without an intersecting, street or alley, or no block face shall have a length greater than thirteen hundred feet (1,300') without a athwa .Block face shall be measured from the centerline to centerlinte of roadwalas and/or uathwavdc as a ro riate. Item #6.- 11 -6113 -5A]: 6:11 -6B -5A1: A subdivision application for property within an industrial, commercial, TN -C or O -T district may be processed as a short plat: if all of the following exists: Item #7,- Item 7; Item #8.- UDC 8: UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 11 -3B -5M: Where screeningis re uired in this Arti without slats does not uali as a screenin material. Item #9.- 11-5B-ID: 9:11-5B-1B: Certificates of Zoning Compliance Applicability: These provisions apply permits that involve construction, exterior alterations and/or the establishment of a new u pp y to all requests for provisions do not apply to tenant improvements where the footprint of an existin strut enlarged. These rovisions do not a 1 to single family arra t,oa a___ ,,. use. These dwellinac can . a _-- tune 1S riot Item #10: Amend the off-street loading space requirements to not require loading spaces by Toss o general philosophy of the UDC regarding commercial development is that the consumers know w needed for the type and size of development. Staff has found that the g f or area. The requirement is not necessary and/or may ina ro rff h require a attharea. hat is deleting Section 11-3GA (including the table) and Section 11-3C- e off street loading space loading Staff recommends B. Item #11: Correct errors and add standards to the family day care similar to the standards laced on occupations as follows: p home 11-4-3.9A 1: In determining the type of day care facility, the total number of during the day and not the number of clients at the facility at one time, the deteared for factor. In the case of a child da care, the operator's children are excluded from the number. determining 11-4-3.9C -Additional standards fnr fnmil–,a., --__ r ., .. �u ua ,�� iur[n m lection 11-3C-6 of this Title in additi off-street arkin for the dwellin . Item #12: Correct errors in home occupation section as follows: 11-4-3.211. Off-street parking shall be provided as set f� Section 11-3C-6 of this Title in to the required off-street parking for the dwelling. addition UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Item #13.- Correct 13:Correct omission in required number of off-street parking spaces as follows: 11 -3C -6B. The following standards shall apply for off-street vehicle parking for nonresidential all Commercial Districts, Residential Districts, and Traditional Neighborhood District shall be one (1) space for every five hundred (500) square feet Neighborhood orh hrequses: In ustrial District the requirement shall every one a space for ever s the requirement area.... y two thousand (2,00) quare feet of groIn all ss floor Item #14.- Correct 14:Correct the parking standards table and figure as follows: TABLE 11-3C-1: REQUIRED STALL WIDTHAND LENGTH BYPARKING ANGLE PARKING ANGLE STALL WIDTH 00 (parallel) 91.0 , STALL DEPTH* ONE —WAY DRIVE AISLE 450 49'-9'-011 600 9'-0" 419'-0„ 13' 0„ 900 9'-0" 46'-1�J-0" 19, ,1 17'-0FP Stalls designed for compact vehicles maybe red 0 ed in depth � � 5'`0" All two-wa drive aisles shall be a minimum of twent feet e t 25' in width,). Item #15.- Replace 1S.•Replace the current Figure 11-3C-I.- FIGURE 1-3C,-I:FIGURE 11-3C-1; PARKING SPACE MEASUREMENTS 0° Parallel B T � A —t 0 ° 9 45 An led 90° Perpendicular Item #16: Correct all the tables and associated references in Chapter 3 Article D that are incorrectly labeled as, "Table 11 -3C -XX. " These tables should be labeled, "Table ]I -3D -,IX,, UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 10 z 0 N W � q � � E M O o ti 4 ZI ti q zl of y W to4 v z qo � z ti O Wm W '•b a 90. � _z m o „p z •� c � � Y 0 L,4 a .o O c .n V q q � Ix m O U iv a� OU .� ZI W o -aO' � ,c �v � LL (nl I� � re. 'S a LL z z U� a If � � E & q zl of y v z qo Wm W 90. � O _ � L,4 a .o O U iv �v � iv � O � c "? 0 b civ p m •� U cu cu LD :13� r o c v zip 00 � � oc o v W Cj p fv o m r N 4 E O CO cc L.L�C.rJ _� zN If CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 9. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA-05-0 the changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) listed in Section 8 of the hearing date of February 2, 2006. 02) application, with Staff Report for the 10. EXHIBITS A. Required Findings from Unified Development Code UDC Text Amendment — ZOA-05-002 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Exhibit A — Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1 • Unified Development Code Text Amendments: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order t grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings; o 7• The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 7, of the Staff Report for more information. 2• The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public heal safety, and welfare; and health, Staff finds that the proposed text amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3• The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provide to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please rely on an y wrien or provided by any public service provider(s) when making his finding al testimony. Exhibit A —Page I -- A- na can 377 8962 2001 BRIGHTON ---9-0��P�OR�An6N January 10, 2006 V1A FAX: 888-6854 Meridian City Flannin� & Zoning Commission 660 E. Watertower, 2° Floor Meridian, ID 83642 RE: planning & Zoning Commission Hearing — February 2, 2006 Y would hereby life to request additional time to sPeak February 2, 2006 hearing to effective) before the Commission during the Traditional Neighborhood Standards, y represent the process the Group on the Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, David W. Turnbull Brighton Corporation "2601 W, Exp[or ' Drive wn+K,bri htoncnr .c ,Suite 2pp, Bais� Idaho 53713 TeL (Z08) 378-4000 FAX (209) 377-8962 Sharon Smith From: Will Berg Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:37 PM To Page 1 of 1 vz -a 2- 4- 4n7 J._`7. /6 • Tara Green; Sharon Smith; Jessica Johnson I?ECEIVET)Subject: FW: MFD Position Statement Attachments: MFD Position Statement on Text Amendments to UDC.doc JAN ? 1 zoos CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICF From: Judy Gerhart Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:58 PM - ---- TO: Anna Canning; Craig Hood; Will Berg Subject: MFD Position Statement Attached is the Meridian Fire Department's Position Statement on the Text Amendments to the Unified Development Code Judy Gerhart for Deputy Chief Joe Silva, Fire Prevention 1/31/2006 Meridian Fire Departments Position Statement on the Proposed Text Amendments to the Unified Development Code The Meridian Fire Department is opposed to the text amendment for the Development Code TN -R as written. Two of the critical factors in the survivabil Unified during a fire are adequate access and water supply. It is the Fire Departments opinion of a dwelling access to the buildings will be severely compromised under this proposal. We feel standard street width of 33' should be maintained in front of pinion that our to the rear of the residences. Additionally, the minimum 20' arae that a he residences and a 20' wide alley the UDC should be increased to a minimum of 24'. garage to alley setback proposed in Street Width Our concerns with the proposed text amendment, in the Traditional Style Neighborhood (TN -R) are emergency access due to narrower streets to the front and rear of the g orhooe Department access is considered part of the fire protection system of structure. Fire Neighborhoods should be designed to allow fire apparatus unobstructed access at all t burto the homes in the event of a fire or a medical emergency. Whenever a street or fire 1 11 times to the the safety of that building and its occupants are jeopardized. The proposed amend e blocked, street section would reduce the width from 33' to 29' back of curb measurement with parking amendment on the both sides of the street. Currently if a 29' street section were approved, p king on to one side only. Anything less than a 29' back of curb measurement would of a e limited parking on the street at all. The required turning radius for a fire truck is 28' insideflow any outside. The turning radius can be affected by the street width and unintended obstructions and 48' as parked vehicles, bollards, landscaping rocks, mature trees and bushes. Narrow such combined with inadequate turning radius makes f l the maneuvering oarge vehicles such streets trucks, difficult in a TN -R District. h as fire Meridian FD & ACHD Current Requirements •29'* Roadway = 2-10' Driving Lanes + 8' parking one side only •33'* Roadway = 2- 9' Driving Lanes + 7' parking both sides Boise FD Current Requirements -29'* Roadway = same as Meridian FD & ACHD •36'* Roadway = 2-10' Driving Lanes + 7,5' parking both sides Alley Width *the dimensions exclude the curb width of 1' The problem associated with alley -loaded garages is that garages contain the area that has an increased fire risk. The residents typically park their vehicles in the alleys or in the s full of gasoline along with other gas powered equipment such as motorcycles, snowmobiles garage boats. Alleys can also be obstructed by maturing landscaping, basketball hoops, raised 11 e and gardens and delivery trucks. This places alley loaded garages in locationp on the lot getable difficult to access and maneuver further jeopardizing adjacent properties. The proposed that is has an alley width of 16' with a 20' right away. A Fire Truck parked on the street p p d TN -R compartment doors open and ladder rack down is 15'5" wide. The firefighters need room around the parked fire truck to remove equipment and to deploy fire hoses up to the involved dwelling. The problems associated with alleys increase as projects age and enforcement of CC&R's grows lax. Obstructions like fences, mature landscaping and trailers that encroach easement are also a problem. Maintaining a clear and unobstructed easements 4,' proposed continued policing, placing additional burden on code enforcement personnel. built perpendicular to the alley ways need to have additional sideill require adjacent homeowners backing into their house. Homes that are yard setbacks to avoid the Rear Set Back The proposed setback of 20' from the alley to the front of the garage do larger vehicles to park in front of the garage without obstructing the alley. with a camper can be as long as 26' when parked in the drivewa g es not allow w unexpected obstruction when fire trucks are ahem y `� crew cab pickup under emergency conditions. The fire department y' This often times can provide attempting to maneuver down a narrow alley the garage to alley be increased to a minimum of 24'requestingfrrom the20' tat proposed setback from amendment. Additional the proposed TN -R would allow for a 5' rear setback if the chooses not to provide a park' Is Proposed in the text p g pad at all to the homeowner. It is the fire department seopinion that this would be a serious mistake to allow this to happen as the alle wou become obstructed by improperly parked vehicles. y ld most assuredly TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN /hr "'"I:., L,<I: \'.•j I1. NcE TO insure that our ----J 1903 y comments and recomm M raa3 AiOR 'I-ammv do Weerd Cr1_y COUNCIL MI_Mt31R5 Keith Bird Joscph W. Horton Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle Cri-y DLPAPrMENTS City Attorney/1-1:1\, 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City \ttot.ncy) 898-5503 (HR) Fax 884-8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Ro1d 888-1234 / fax 895-0.390 ].'arks & Recreation 1 l W Bower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. WaterlOwcr Lane Suite 202 884-5533 / fax 888-6844. Police 1401 E. Watertower bans 888-6678 / fax 846-1-366 Public Works 660 E. Watertow(>, Lanc Su i to 200 898-5500 / fax 895-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower 1._anc Suite 150 887-2211 /Fax 887_1297 Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191 / fax 884-0744 Water 2235 N,W, 8th Street 888-5242 / fax 884-1159 the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission_" ations be p erase submitdeou by comments and recommendtions to the City of Meridian y Attn: Planning Department, by: Janna Transmittal Date: Hearing Date: Request: Zoninr Janus 12 2008 NY26' 2006 File No.: ZOA 05-002 Few ary 2r 2006 nrrlinm" standard and,..Clean By: ce Tex>c Amendment to establish rru_a UuI- cext -see application for details of MeridianP nanl nanl Location of Property or Project: David Zaremba (no FP) David Moe (no FP) Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP) Michael Rohm (No FP) Keith BOMP (No FP) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Charlie Rountree, C/C Christine Donnell, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Shaun Wardle, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Services(No vm. vnc. FP) Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department Your Concise m-ma.i_ Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office(FP/PP only) Ada County Highway District Ada County Development Services Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrig. District Idaho Power Co. (FP,PP,cuF,) Qwest (FP/PP only) Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP) Ada County Ass. Land Records Meridian Development Corp. Historical Preservation Comm. WC JHIY 1 IF (uuu CREEWEE. CITY HALL 33 EAST' TnA1ro AVLIVUF Me1t117(nnr Innrlo WAST JX#W]��OgEPT. CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4238 FINANCE & UTIf_ITY BILLING - FAX4433 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE, - FA.X 0fAkridian. Printed on recycled pa8-per; LU a m a a w LU H 0 W a! z C� ° o Q .0 •;� CU su O p s u aU v Ni GCp•� O `` V > -N di cc w y m O 7 u" U') o ma v Wcu W tj in u C) to C) oITJ �"�a' u O p cu O p 4 a to "� c� •'r V Lf� � V i.y cs� •� `� � N O" . � O C) d N N N cu u u to u u cz w p O w tc tt u u J .� to 2 cz M O ca u ° ol a,, ( j to�d bA C) d N N N cLf v bjD C, ti O J V C) d N N N 00 0 N a a, N N N I� AA ^-1 y •'y- V V o �.. ice, v� � � ey „� a a �' tial .0-0 p X N 7, N (' �• CU N N N M M ' cf 00 N CU a o 0 Q1 N n a uO �'' r• M O cv co W M � Q O � cc� U U y 4] C Cd ar V 00 cc cu 03 W U cid u 1-4U U 4.' ` u cU ai U U U m o ai y cu r� a CA Z U 0 c O � U 7 U U � H O f1 �y rr 00 0 M d cto O N N N eei U O w Ci�.i U U N bo y O C7 � N U W) V'1 co V A V � bA ai Q Ao _ y °x p OU O n co vi p U3 G b C' 00 ro v v? O v ro a� V h C CDa0i ; U o x o � o o oan cn ro g � ti aoi w d � sa, . � .n ,� -v •� � � D v, _�CO � � � ,� � -p b4 � bb 'Zi En to blo NR:NCL ANN NN N NN M°? 00 el N n O M ON N b mONn O M a'' n* M M l� Q ,�, , K N 7 N4 N � 00 O N _O 00 O 0 h n fry d V1 v� m cn cd� x cu o° �a c� A 41 ro ro 'd ti Cn � o v _ cq v � v � o a �' F HF"¢A o O co 'U m W N v 4 V r.+ 0 Ll -'4 o 3 3r��� N W n V V � n. crena o .k ac '^ v o N 0 D Oh tioobo Ob to o +,IS 0 o -• oo n .7 •--�NNNNM M °po 3 3 C ae N N NN V CYO .. N ,O" rL04 O" N N N 00 m m CD N N � N pe N M N M o0 V•) O M oNp N 0 00 N V'> O OM M O yi M �o Cl� v ,n O C C kn ,n O v y � � co y O F' q �•� '� Aa°,� o� Aon 3 �� �3 � ch to Q COQ A AQ W U A 4. o w ami O I U U c U b ern U o o O cn ct > Ea a ol3 9 3 00 0 eu o � a A•a N N N H o CD y9 N o I U by (:D ani U Q v Si'ron 3 �A U� 41n�u 27,3 w A w C v bq p bA N cu � Q) 41 :Ur bA sem. M OJ n v1 :2 'G _� U cn C oo ,.00 N m-14 .,..� col Nd oo Q i i CyII 41 U cul N N N N N N cu M r, oo n U CL) v u ri 0 ONO 00 ct N N I Nu CD cj� co uo w vi 'C3 �i i i E41 a ° v w c Q � cu 0 4- 4J u ° c axi v ca ° �� x� U 04, F. U �'' 3 v u cu a° c U A ° v U cz w0 ' y •o-y ti v O (u v C) � v j C7 ajcn o oa o o U� cq Uj u O u "C7 v WW to -tn w� 0 bA 3 U O O a ~d ctl 'v v 4- > v > v� 0 a o O o '~ a c L) ~ 3 Q O u c o U. CU 4. 10 a O bi O � ` O u ou U ul �I a v �H 'gal'., v u a a pi a p O vi °Q a A� N x a Tj a a a_a a; bo Iau UV "CJ W bo 0 cc bA 0.�box •A -i w+y 'u CU o v Uu Q a w a� �� o w Lo u Qcu m�•a U� a � uu � U) amCz i all � N � ° cl Z�ob rd a cn to N a O cV'C v �a C:) 52, a N a O � � v a u � Ln o o uZ- J+�+ V a c a O a° o ;-q ad o 3 I oc 0 n Q to Cd a s� U Q1 �^ O Qj .ry x Ln u cu cu a CO v � U N o Ln d v 00 C'4 W 00 a� U � o c a � Ocon a �.+CCU; 't:5 v bio go I 00 4-40 00 0 ao cz a, Ir - vCU.0 � Q O Q) 14, Q va v C7 v v H �1 o Q cu " v W �U v c CU o v � v U � a a v v a� ani v v 0 CD N 00 0) 0) O rn 0 U m ni com a it considers tfi of tra ur t us easres, Lead y d safet and pedestrian e frit � rias fe tur s to exist g h alm'n Wt eets SmaPt u y p a e , existing , s g pp rhes should.. rn - �rovv treet,deSi n a Th'! .111 she l� n r, th s _,. hi reet d yes goo ht esin' strateglaes and taals ; be structured to et things,in the first w ch`summan dst' s intended for emergenc'v response officials involved, in r�viewirig g ar p hat are' t from convetion.i post-war: -new devela menu t difFeren suburban desi ns. This is not uncharted .tory..ln a sense,Sma t tern � 'o ji ut going et desi n, at g Qwth is b g ce: oin back to sere "v�ere on r r 0 . theFl feam Ty to P The ood:;A marked pedestrian crossing w' street designs from coior7ia im d Wa d short 9 g es'ta VVo,rl ical s P hulaou blocks few dead-end or ,cul -d t: , it e�sae's . e nt as p e ' tre ts, aveme s , as all eu narrow every feet, he e r planting s i' and often aIle; walks sM rb radii at cornea sidewalks �^' p g ys. Beginning in the late 1940s, and accelerating through the past`'' war suburban boom; streets, took ern a radic 1'' di al f.ereri ch t :haracer The y race emphasis was on moving cars- efficiently; and less alaout desi nin a u � t met ed 9 p p blit env�r � c e� t that, uding � arid' . ny those.of f edestrians Y lists. I ne S incl' „ rr�a ' e` g , % burstreets hav, P A 5 v ,ntion'a'I ui, L loan Compared with r vvar desi n con e' e the following chara ct rustics.. ■: Wider pavement widthsWEDI. ■ Longer blacks ,g ■. esu er- rid" itte r1 wv' r.. � , C. I p g e looks." cal=st' eets .' P within the su r ■ Gently Curving streets'. lir of'rderidian , y ■ Numerous Cit C^i`erk Dice cul-dscs. ■ Rolled curbs with . `ra at, a much w oder i,us corners Inf u n req ent ori ade uat dewalks. e si „fit n-motoriz d en L� o r7 ed travel.' Little tt ti nt This street pattern, a rn .fit w w1 - s p ell th land' use 9 , ,, pa e stn 'le, tterns w Yi fame si l re i l ere y dent a „partrrients, em la mens and sh" �n 0 5 p y u es c ......other pp g r5'tet ginr'gaaedeaQ�e pans wa su erg „g e cts were i�h n � s ri Ccan' y in, ds�n Ie�us p However, a h" iershi , v s Crave ar p an � c aw, chi p , d mile n s rious robl c ease , t', d v to ment aternrhas caused H i led have all.. � [� P e' p ems::.: I i I, K �!°w er�t"ta 'C'' 141 5t�, Suite 60' �a am A' 95'8 4-39,6+6 T9 1.6 44,871 (1 '448-8246 -`.,WyVWc.01o F , The bad,, Too many lanes, no protection for people, *' # ,.N' " •tea,, ,a {, ' ; i ®',.'•° w,y,,�p t�•,t�; ,. f'" :... •• • e,.•xis.+.' .,.�,nl, � ;'�•�.�� ,�^ � � �.•�";X '� .,^moi �' •a'. � a, N, 0 llnnelln "•, �arg olUme5 of cart di care ffiosthrough' e u 9 hnumber6hrre 5ectionsisles e entthans er5ln those d . over. a lar n er network n with s I ns. The result can:be seen th � � rl ec I c mmu umer t rs tia do e n p d Wa I' o nities today — long d s I y n stio collector an elays an a g n d arterial roadways, r distance Crave Longer rstari, nd few connections between destinations also mean that routine trips, p's Ilk e 9schoal orIckingu of n 9 to P aoofofbread ��. r e' trip thus fust qulre e vehicle her•coirnp0unjding the probl en°t: h iste'tat ,°.a a` d'i e r ct i m c 'ca n res .o p e+erency sponse', dri e ed Streets eet an li d rl 11te'd .,ic"on and access 9 Infese ..ectlons n ss points can si nificantl t,i.mes, 1!Uid _ yspo chy that.eu tu'' h nse d e, high speed streets —• particuCarC y r se in re ion1,$u. r• r i� hI: ar en I amps chid � �� trh d,o ally ever Ic tla g evel ergr (;arterial areas, land e neig ear schoo eti rhoods or n Is and Shopping streets. Any.trlp b nations of difFe es e n hbo etw en desti aso''in d e the risk of accidents eh h.,oth s o matte e r t c �s and increase a e5 — n s n 11 e ey a o each other s. w must p� • I er arteri�l�,l�s th r t' use then. By with smart aril rdr tali conal n 'g p o th n the orhood •• t ei hb hoo designed g V+i' principles (o ri ht)'contai balan 9 ns ced mix of.cises, so that mahy,day-to,7day travel needs of ade re fo be al( a' re'�idents can met'loc y;, �'hese trips can be m ot, b'1Jt if a'ca ri" �u s e s r d e' it short drive Inside the neighborhood,'gum my without acting the ar e ' P. g t tial network. , g all vehicle travel out o the regional ar eria ' Forcing network ort t I r makes traffic.con es CIC? n"I g I.nevltabl estie, This don ' on— 9-unnecessary i n° 5' a smart tl r Qui h' t o c g mmu it, mea navigation nn , or e me Two ''Creve SQ iqht �1'1eq'� Traffic � cihti '�I"dV cagmincy 9 el n pa rest',, tt�rt`1 ores ca $ mea M The to non-mo e left side of the I. torized it ustratlon hews a conventio s' nal so , it �� ed6, C travel but p� s �t';Ito Ce do single -family, o ty. ng'emer e c e:times.... ... g b e ofwith-out� multi-lam l amily, designed el h r p use - g If d affecting yr g c n r sp ,. III ns o. properly, roc Yr d with mph p street - h ea (lice' ub IC se re e t l e tracts. me ei rn jo'th, . e 'us siderts a` o , e street co � pie' . n, ions-collect ated s'v� ovidinl ,.. cars m t In to sing Th nne I needs of e ct on t envl r e I the n c hile � providing ec � onm nt hat; qu pen ire, t emergency res dens re _CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT SMART GROWTH DEVELOPMENT • Uses __�SeParated �. --�— — _ e Mi IX ed �.—. thr Str ou ee h _ _ is ou _ Br —.� t _ Branched — Conventionalched hierarchy feeding arterials Interconnected — n _ d Wlt h5 Wi 9 hot de t bl �.— wi o th cks -- man de • Alle s ��— —ad—ends Narrow, with multi le access routes _ Rolled_curbpt loadin dock access Smart �— None, exce —� --- glmostw�where, even residential Growth Curbs _ s in all residential areas Sidewalks — Vertical curbs evehere �_ Development P�� �� �—.Attached to curb, if amt at all universal, detached_or ver _wide _ 1.�,.—..�•�Isolated in homes and cars Approaches Children Interact onsorches and sidewalks _Must be chauffeured b arents W_ Must —�— —�-- safe to move independent) in area __ Compare Between cars and buildincls��`— To man dail destinations .. hides .�.Y—.ydestin —`~ — __ -- �— ____ �? All tri must use re conal network --" Fire Trucks Must navi ate throw h con estion Qu ker res onse with short internal trams Dail needs met �L������__._ u —.� in less traffic ,II I sweeping change in approach is required when smart streets are designed. At the outset, it must be understood that the "street" is the entire space between buildings on opposing sides of the street, not just the curb -to -curb pavement section. This larger space must be designed to meet parallel objectives that place safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists on a par with motorized vehicle travel. The street must also provide parking, and be visually appealing. The primary factor that determines the character of a particular street is its function in the neighborhood, not the volume of car traffic that a computer model predicts it must accommodate. This is a philosophical shift away from what has been standard practice in traffic engineering for the last few decades. For example, if you want to create a "main street"type neighborhood commercial center, do not design the street for high volumes of traffic — no matter what the computer simulation says. Six lanes of fast, noisy cars will be hazardous to pedestrians, and destroy the quiet environment that encourages people to stroll around a neighborhood center. A well-designed street in a neighborhood center should be two lanes — and never more than four — with curbside parking, generous sidewalks and design features that strictly limit vehicle speed. Simply put, it is a small-scale boulevard, not an expressway. Providing bicycle lanes along all arterial streets is an important consideration, and can greatly benefit emergency response. The bike lane becomes available for cars pulling to the right to clear the through lane for emergency vehicles. With curb -to -curb vehicle lanes, it is more difficult for cars to pull out of the way. Slowing vehicle speedsis important, since the higher den- sities typical with smart growth mean there is so much More non -vehicular activity on the streets. A driver in a conventional street environ ment"owns"the road, except for a few crosswalks at selected corners. The driver's attention is focused only on his own actions and those of other drivers. On a smart -growth street, the driver must slow down and be alert for: Pedestrians in crosswalks. Pedestrians crossing away from crosswalks. Bicyclists entering, crossing, and riding along the street. Cars entering and leaving curbside parking spaces. More frequent intersections and crosswalks. Curb bulbs, pedestrian refuges, and other safety features not in conventional streets. The kinds of smart -growth design concepts described in this fact sheet will let the street engineer get it right initially, so that expensive, controversial and time- consuming traffic calming, projects are not needed later to correct poor design. FOR MORE: INFORMATION Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhodds;' . Dan.: Burden, Local Government tdimmissian. "imergehc R spons',TraFfi afrTriri' a 9 hd T'radition'al Ne' ighborh' o d 5 r ets;, Dari Burderi:arid Paui zykpfsk y, Tra,frrc ali`t�it 9 dirid'Emerl enc -Pies tori g. y p se fact;' s'I ee t, Lp a I cave rn' e n t Com"mission, W7 Sm rt. SiOlni a 9.1.rOwt. 0,1111110he s in? p 1� e5t way t 6 Warn wh a 06� . . , at sm rt-growth,streets are like at ,Is ' to tooikWOOd War 11 neighborhoods'nii. any,city, in Vqeica�, There yo ',will seA * I U,, emost ofthese characteristics: MO Distinction between' streetsiforl re travel and local 'ac cess! W� R 66(fed Pavement. widfh'so:� as�,lnarrow as 26 feet for two-way residential streets._. f Rectangular blocks, no longer than 500 or 600 eet, with- pedestrian passages if longk Alleys in most settings, resld'Ont,ial and, neigh I , . 1. 1 .11 , 1, '' or. oloj,comry�elritial., 1: m' streets tha fav '. I . I t: r -raightlines,curvi 101, st h I h .96 dicta yI,w I en I tOP00'ra phy::. tes. ch ctionpoints'at prominent.lan( rnarks,sbch as 0� Ipark ur h, city hall or clock tower,: Bike lanes or bike paths connecting key 0 1 est : ina . t .. i an -an 0 districts. Medians, generally raised and, la 't t"I Indscaped, on ."main ree ... and arterials. Sidewalks. ever ywhere, with-plantin 91sari ps in resi( ential areas, concrete to the curb-in coral" miercia Iareas', - use of eclestri p an-fr,endly devices likecurb" bulbs and pedestrian refu g�es.': �7 6- to 8.-inch vertical cuibs,� Curbsideparkin ArtIi;ialjyQ h g veryw erlel.. Why emergency re$'ohd p .,e s s. dud care. I Ir Regional beirlefits. Employed ohz )'regi6naf I: basis, smart gr.Wth land- I' Wsepattern.siiIi street des.Jgh'will. reduce arterial congestion o ngestio'n"because more ail r t da trips e. e p d Internally,in •nei bo'rh6o'ds with out ventu ri out, . onto the',regon l , 1 arterial network: This:re!, uc'e Ih congestion'benefits &h I ..be I I I ergency responi cause flie, police M ularice' dries �111'6hcou, and, 6 b vehic Inter fiewer cars-on I', I .. , 'primary. es;'a rid reponse rout private.yehicles. will be ableii use bike: lanes to move out' of h Localladvant rn I p oy n,se ii d i . si I rict I age's:.'E I ''ed i ' i is mart: h growt patterns, and street d6sjgn��wjjl improve f, land-use Ire;,P() ice and I"" '' ' I ambulance kcessi�be'6ijse th y are prolvidbel many diff&ent.::� routes t6.:a.n'ern6rgen,cy �e ne,.This red'! uces, t he d neefor I, I-excess. nt wi.. h' 'emergency, �vehi I dt loiallow es' I . 1. c to pass,by ehicles".1 =already' elplibyed ata IsceIn6� ", ' ' : ' , . Y d the rnI.. I . late arriva Isca In t N' � I ''I I , 11 eotheridirec 1 9 e rear tion; or' fo �th Of theSC06el �' h`4 Both:oft'h;es:l h a t ,, e alley apprpa,c ,.st'rategies 6reI', I ntional devel opment,that; favors dead-end streets d lacks aIle 5 san rr Printed on retyded'paper - editlq1e $(O,� daye,davis ... .. .... . If rJ Aiming ana V Resnnnca ii � `{3,'. •w '�k��� N i7"' 4�'y"' "$ 7"vi jW ,„ Y is ,E. .1{8���,' b� , ••�" f '• ' , (� y 7° l t., J �i � i�a ', y,. 4" ' � y ,,, i, s"x 1'� ',i i 0 atd IC 4j ..,q. ti .'..*•,' �. p eurdsid W. 1;,;j333� '131 i�, +jA3„33': dsiapi�rg«sg y'th�'e ..aha' il'' u^ 13 fr:t, r t' &•.: ` n l io �w�: 4 r I �w' � r p� � A,. create,. A,:. Le ''. 'ISS:\1 ;66 ,, ,A ft1�Ja e il SJtu�tln'�;t �!' ..e y!'.+r I t,•:. Wi't 4 E'. •S "•� ��'�,', at I ,e"Y&„ 4M, i� "Trlff�+M1}�"�3',�Ilh, r ,E i,6 lllpuA„.irlli, m 11 7,7 i... r. � r.,d�E'� ,•d; .. ,:..; :ry. ; +1,13,.. , , � .: Twe, factor � ,"2I;,�,, s hl l .. tv a, l in tra I I rn er a �. ,. n to calr�n��'" A,. t �n tr�c ,� �erJets e;�ideh'�� ofte to traffic ng re'ase h - - oncl' � I. rlln borh n i hl hoc p.�ed s ,g visible sign oterit I' f + el "x i h obi rpj tt p .. �j Qd... Rmprovment, Hca � � P�,so�`eae� suece sf - ding tp,additirial requests; Possible l e11 Go n f � etwee"n�I mlrlw traffic ca lrmin an +�,emer g er�c r. �e +o a g,. _ I,Y � rise here is no g. that poorly t'h ht -out tra VIII o'u ff projects have created headach s f g �c calming 11 e or emergency responders, This is because th two tools rrm'o �' st commonly provided:. . when neighborhoods cbm lain about`traffi s 'e p eds — s ee d p L. p humps and stop signs -• have the potential'to increase response times, and can be hard on equip mens.. I Resources for fi so ution.ng l L I re care approach suggest ' is fact sheet and oth er LGC materials a more ful' mer j.ency responders particilpate'wit i ri which e h I!l����IIIII;;;1111! Local ,,,, .......: Government WJI Commission rest ents and local Jurisdictions to develop programs that;' � n i imine 'm pactsl,on response time' - S� . .. ....._....... . 600 • Sacramento, ...... . 1414 K St., Suite to, CA 95814- 3966 T (916) 448-1198 • F (916) 448-8246 ■ www.lgc.org N ifWr- 01ir- few common traffic calming tools are summarized here. More detailed information about these and other techniques can be found in the Local Government Commission's Streets and Sidewalks, People and Cars: A Citizen's Guide to Traffic Calming by Dan Burden. This guidebook, available at www.lgc.org, discusses the proper use, benefits, costs and considerations of each technique. Speed Humps This device, which forces drivers to slow down by adding a bump or vertical deflection to the road, is often the most used tool since it is widely known and is relatively inexpensive. However, it is often used inappropriately where other measures might work better. Speed humps and tables may slow most vehicles, but not trucks or SUVs, and they can also produce speed spikes. They are best used when narrow streets don't provide room for better and more aesthetic measures. Because speed humps can slow down emergency responders by 6 to 11 seconds, they should not be deployed on primary response routes. Roadway Narrowing This technique slows vehicle speeds by visually or physically narrowing the driver's"turf"on the street. This can be as simple as striping for bicycle lanes, or as comprehen- sive as a complete makeover of the streetscape with land- scaping, wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and reduced numbers of vehicle lanes. Improperly designed narrowing projects can create problems if they leave insufficient room for drivers to pull out of the way of emer- gency vehicles, or introduce long medians which prevent emer- gency vehicles from crossing into oncoming traffic lanes to get through signalized intersections. Bulbouts or Curb Extensions This measure targets pedestrian crossings at corners or mid -block. It reduces the width of the crossing and also reduces vehicle speeds, which both improve safety for people on foot. It also directs pedestri- ans to marked crossings, which can be visually enhanced with landscaping. Pedestrian Refuge Islands This device can be used at intersections or mid -block pedestrian crossings. It provides a place for a pedestrian to stand safely in the middle of a two-way street until a gap in traffic appears. Refuge islands are most useful where high vehicle volumes and speeds exist. Like bulbouts, pedestrian refuges improve safety at crosswalks, and slow vehicle traffic. Roundabouts This device is a raised, preferably landscaped center island in an intersection, with triangular deflector islands on each approaching street. Mini circles are installed without the deflector islands on each approaching street. The deflection path for vehicles entering and exiting the roundabout insures that speeds are kept below 20 mph. Pedestrian crossings are moved slightly away from the roundabout, using the deflector islands. Mini circles are installed without the deflector islands at smaller intersections, and best used on quieter residential streets. These tools that rely on vehicles yielding can greatly improve safety for all parties, and efficiently handle large traffic volumes at formerly signalized intersections. 4+, "AIC . ' N Traffic Calming Player s ` + ":,•;, w"�,r�,, �..,�,�,,;',i'�� d�?�`cy .��C�� . �.,` ; ' n" �3:, s�' %,� �;;�,,., ., . ��',s'a',,,.'' ,E;� .. raffic calming projects require alla affected parties participaterticipatein the process of determining key problems and solutions. The Citizens,Guide to Traffic Calming detailse pr ���° communities munities t scall th process that .. „ typically go through, Some of the key play Residents People living alongor n the first and loudest p ear a bus street are Y often proponents of traffic calming. Their demands s may often focus o speed n sp d bumps and stop signs that can counterproductive. be T m;:. ^ R —Th Decision -Makers es are he o t. U e t people that residents usually " Unfortunately, in process ora Y the absence of a good traffic calming program, m, they may approve poorly conceived and stop signs andspeed humps, in spite of emergency nc YC" > response impacts.i ;. A &'ma "` Public Works Engineers —The individuals are instructed by i�, A� the decision -makers to design E <' gn traffic ;' �► ;, calming projects hopefully Yworking with residents. Their knowledge of and attitude towards traffic calming techniques may vary greatly,' earl Y, a Planners — Planners also r espond to instructions frommakers often with an decision - makers, � •� f,�' � approach that looks at corn economic impacts and ache ad munity needs, r broad issues. They are usually sensitive to bicyclist an ed more d pedestrian needs. y Response s m ergenc Agencies —These a ��",u with agencies must live wi the traffic calming g results, good or bad, an re spo nse times.� Some agencies understand the broader issue that some modes t O delay in response times may be justified if it improves '�" along the street in safety l question. Like ,, "I Drivers c res Zvi= ,ham;„: ,� — emergency ponders, drivers must often accept �� whatever the r p ogram produces, Their response will be varied. r' a�0 Large Vehicle Trip Generators — These are large private or , r,l, ny ��I,” institutional uses ses like schools, hospitals, business parks, military "4 bases or universities. Traffic calmingprojects - ; ', Sider these destinations prO� should always con and the potential to mi ' eliminate vehicle trips with carpools, �R p shuttles n es or other travel reductio measures. printed on recycled paper-editin + .. •, ..° ,W" 9 design, dove davis 32 km/h 20 MPH Pedestrians' chances of death if hit by a SOURCE: Killing Speed and Saving Lives, UK Department VehIC�@ xment of Transportation 45% RECEIVED FEB > c)f .1 e.ridiaxl CirY C'lexlk Office 85% 1N7 �•iN 00, dt7rT5d[. Oly �t Georgia Department Of.. 'anspor ation ,Az � programs for the safety of the students." By helping to foster a safe environment around schools, the Board can promote a better walking environment .in many communities in Georgia. The "Bigger Picture" — Creating Pedestrian -Friendly Communities through Land Use Planning When developing a community of any size, pedestrians need to be thought about from the very beginning stages. One assumption about pedestrians that should always be made is that people want to walk. With this thought in mind planning for pedestrians becomes an integral part of the design process. Destinations, whether the grocery store, park, or bus stop, should be close .in Proximity to neighborhoods. In established communities, strategies can be used to encourage Pedestrian scale design and increased pedestrian travel. Techniques such as in -fill development, zoning changes, and pedestrian connections to transit help create pedestrian -friendly communities. There are many good sources of information about how to plan and design pedestrian -friendly communities, as listed at the end of this toolkit section. Some common characteristics of pedestrian -friendly communities are listed in Table 18, Common Characteristics of Pedestrian Friendly Communities Coordination Between Jurisdictions Putting pedestrian facilities in place to meet current and future needs requires close coordination between jurisdictions and other modes of transportation. Linkages to a Variety of Land Uses/Regional Connectivity Pedestrian circulation and access is provided to shopping malls, transit, downtown, schools, parks, offices, mixed-use developments, and other community origins and destinations, as well as within the region, as illustrated in Figure 7. other communities Continuous Systems/Connectivity A complete system of interconnected streets, pedestrian walkways, and other pedestrian facilities will increase pedestrian travel. Shortened -Trips and Convenient Access Connections are provided between popular origins and destinations, between dead-end streets or cul-de- sacs, or as shortcuts through open spaces, as illustrated in Figure 8. Continuous Separation from Traffic Minimized or eliminated street and driveway crossings are provided and well defined. Buffers from motor vehicles and separation of uses are provided. Pedestrian Supportive Land Use Patterns Land use patterns, such as a grid layout or short blocks in business districts and downtowns enhance pedestrian mobility. Well -Functioning Facilities Adequate width and sight distance, accessible grades, and alignment to avoid blind corners are provided. Common problems, such as poor drainage, are avoided. Table '18 24 _ PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE GUIDE Common Characteristics of Pedestrian Friendly Communities (continued) Designated Space Pedestrian facilities should be well delineated, signed, and marked. Security and Visibility It is important to design a safe and secure environment for pedestrians. Lighting, increased visibility, open sight -lines, access to police and emergency vehicles, and locating pedestrian facilities neighborhoods and businesses can increase safety, adjacent to Automobile is not the Only Consideration Streets are designed for all modes of transportation. Parking supply is reduced or managed using methods that encourage walking. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Narrowed streets lined with trees, traffic circles, curb bulbs, neck -downs, and other techniques can lower vehicle speeds and create safer conditions for pedestrians. Accessible and Appropriately Located Transit Siting of transit facilities adjacent to work, residential areas, shopping, and recreational facilities encourages pedestrian trips. Transit stops and centers should typically be located in areas of supporting densities (4 to 7 units per acre minimum). Development of adequate pedestrian facilities to access transit is essential to the success of pedestrian travel as an alternative mode. Lively Public Spaces Secure, attractive, and active spaces provide focal points in the community where people can gather and interact. Pedestrian pocket parks and plazas are examples. Character Preservation of important cultural, historic, and architectural resources strengthens community heritage and character. Scenic Opportunities Attractive environments and scenic views encourage pedestrian use, particularly when facilities are oriented toward them. Pedestrian Furnishings Providing amenities, such as benches, restrooms, drinking fountains, artwork and other elements, creates a more attractive and functional environment for pedestrians. Street Trees and Landscaping Street trees bring human scale to the street environment. Landscaping and flowers in planting strips, containers, and other areas soften surrounding hard edges of buildings and parking lots and add life, color, and texture to the pedestrian's field of vision. Design Requirements Guidelines and adopted standards are followed and, if deviated from, justified and documented. Proper Maintenance Frequent cleanup and repair on a regular basis ensures ongoing, consistent use. Table 18 (continued) TOOLKIT 1 -GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 25 7 �y�yyit ti+M•��','�ri'.r l`,l,Ate'3, tA�Yd •.,�::�q Street trees enhance the pedestrian environment, Creating a Continuous Pedestrian System The pedestrian transportation system in Georgia should be consistent across jurisdictional boundaries and public and private developments, Regional and local pedestrian systems need to be planned, designed, and constructed to provide a comprehensive network of travel options for pedestrians. The design guidelines in this guide encourage more consistent design of pedestrian facilities throughout the state, but the responsibility to develop and support a seamless pedestrian transportation network lies with everyone, In most cases, local jurisdictions have the authority to require property owners and developers to 26 provide sidewalks. Targeting public funding so that strategically located projects can be designed and built to fill in the gaps between private development is one way to help improve the overall system. Retrofit of existing areas where pedestrian facilities are inadequate is another important step. The development of a seamless pedestrian system will be the result of both public and private investment throughout neighborhoods and communities, Coordination between agencies, governments, and private entities is critical to the success of regional pedestrian systems. School districts, utility companies, private corporations, and local agencies all need to work together at the onset of transportation and development plans and projects to reach the best solutions for all interests involved. Consider the needs of pedestrians throughout project planning, design, and development processes at all levels, with particular interest toward increasing pedestrian safety, mobility and access, and improving the pedestrian network overall. Special Pedestrian -Oriented Districts and Areas In some instances, either concerning new development or preservation of older development, the creation of a pedestrian -oriented district may be approprlate. Pedestrian districts can be developed through revision of a city zoning code to pertain to a certain area of the city. To preserve an older area where the pedestrian environment is likely to already exist, officials can create a. pedestrian -overlay district that aims to keep the pedestrian -friendly design, such as the requirement of street trees, reduced parking requirements, and building facades oriented towards the pedestrian, New development that occurs In pedestrian districts would follow specific criteria, which makes the environment conducive to pedestrian travel. Transit -oriented districts also promote a pedestrian environment, See Toolkit 9 — Pedestrian Access to Transit for more .information. PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE GUIDE Creating an Effective Pedestrian System Pedestrian systems and facilities need to be functional to be effectively used by pedestrians. The National Bicycle and Walking Study conducted by the US Department of Transportation .in 1992 provides guidance for making a pedestrian system effective. The study states: `Pedestrian facilities both encourage people to walk and irnprove pedestrian safety along cettain routes. The facilities must be well- designed and maintained to be el ective, and must Include the following features.- Sidewalks, eatures:Sidewalks, paths or walkways which are wide, relatively clear of obstructions and separated from traffic lanes; • Grade separated pedestrian crossings only when clearly justified, since such facilities go unused or create illegal street crossing behavior by pedestrians if not Properly planned, designed and located; • Proper design and operation of traffic and pedestrian signals, including pedestrian Push buttons, where appropriate; • Barriers that physically separate pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic at selected locations to discourage jaywalking; • Facilities for people with mobility and visual impairments, including curb ramps, audible pedestrian signals, and :longer intervals for slower pedestrian walking speeds; • Signing and marking, including pavement edgelines and pedestrian warning signs where .needed; and • Pedestrian malls which are well-planned with respect to commercial development, traffic circulation and visual appeal. TOOLKIT I -GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Figure 8 illustrates an example of how to design effective pedestrian facilities within an area, including some of the features recommended by the National Bicycling and Walking Study. Toolkit 10 — Site Design for Pedestrians contains more specific design guidelines related to site development. Pedestrian -Friendly Streets Current planning and design directives at the local and regional :level often encourage design of pedestrian friendly streets. The meaning of pedestrian -friendly" can be interpreted in many ways, but generally, the intent is for street design to incorporate elements that enhance the safety, security, comfort, and mobility of pedestrians. Table 19 on page 29, lists several elements typically included on pedestrian -friendly streets. Other Sources of Information The following sources of information are recommended for general design of pedestrian facilities. Please see the Resource Guide included at the end of this guide for complete bibliography information, Accommodating the Pedestrlan, Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling, Richard K. Untermann Guide for Planning; Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities - Draft, AASHTO 1 «Cau,'rau-rrlennly street 27 Creating an Effective Pedestrian System (I)Locate parking near the buildings they serve. ®Provide walkways along clear and direct routes © Drop-off zones are most convenient when throughout the site. Surfaces should be firm and located as close to the primary entrance to the level. Curb cuts and ramps should be provided building as possible. Provide curb cuts for where necessary. Accessible walkways should be pedestrian accessibility. Walkways should be continuous (not dead -ends). unobstructed. Access to drop-off areas, ®Locate transit stops in highly visible and parking, and building entries should be direct convenient areas. Provide pedestrian shelters. and convenient, oProvide site entrances that are well a r > defined and conveniently located in ^ a• x. p ... . relation to the site and the building. r. ®Use clear and easy to.read signage to direct pedestrians to their origins and destinations.1.., (3)Provide building entries that are clearly A ( � pub lit m � identified and accessible. Locate facilities restrooms, phones, drinking -y Wim, i fountains) near entryways and accessible routes ©Locate waiting areas within 300 ft of building entries. Avoid;traffic congestion, f CIS] .-.. Overhead shelters or awnings next to'� buildings provide protection from weather. " .:.' Provide adequate seating and lighting, ~ = @Provide resting areas where pedestrians must"""'' P. walk long distances. Benches and other furnishings should not encroach. an walkways., 71 1 NOW: For tree planting and landscape requirements within state highway rights-of-way, refer to GDOT Standards (MDG 6160) Source: Time -Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture, adapted with revisions for this guide inura R 28 ......_.. PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE GUIDE Typical Elements of Pedestrian -Friendly Streets Streets that are interconnected and have small block patterns provide good opportunities for pedestrian access, mobility, and safety. • Narrower streets, scaled down for pedestrians and less conducive to high vehicle speeds (note: street trees at the sides of streets create the perception of a narrower roadway). Traffic calming devices to slow traffic (See Toolkit 8) or if appropriate, reduced speed limits • Median refuge islands to provide a refuge area for crossing pedestrians • Public spaces and pedestrian "pockets" adjacent to the main pedestrian travel way, that provide a place to rest and interact (sidewalk cafes, benches, etc.) • Awnings/covered building entrances that shelter pedestrians from weather • Planting buffers, with landscaping and street trees that provide shelter and shade without obstructing sight distances and help to soften the surrounding buildings and hard surfaces • Street lighting designed to pedestrian scale (shorter light poles with attractive fixtures that are effective in illuminating the pedestrian travel way but not obtrusive or harsh) • Wide and continuous sidewalks or separated walkways that are fully accessible • Clear delineation and direction for the pedestrian (special paving on sidewalk or at edge of pedestrian travel area, easy -to -reach signal actuators, etc.) Table 19 TOOLKIT 1 -GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES City Comforts, How to Build an Urban Village, David Sucher City, Rediscovering the Center, William H. Whyte Creating Bicyr..le-hie-'?WY and Walkable Communities, Pro Bike Pro Walk 96 Resource Book, Bicycle Federation of America, Pedestrian Federation of America Creating Transportation Clroires Througlr Zoning, A Guide for Snohomish County Communities, The Snohomish County Transportation Authority Design and Safety of Pedestriaza Facilities, A Proposed Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Technical Council Committee 5A-5 Handbook for Walkable Communities, Dan Burden and Michael Wallwork„ PE Handbook of Landscape Arclritectural Construction, i/olume Two, Site Works, Maurice Nelischer Municipal Strategles to Increase Pedestrian Travel Washington State Energy Office National Blcycling and Walking Study, Case Study No, 4, Measures to QVercolne Impediments to Bicycling and Walking; US Department of Transportation Pedestrian Malls, Streetscapes, and Urban ,Spaces, Harvey M. Rubenstein Pedestrian Planningand Design, John J. Fruin, PhD Planning and Implennenting Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas Research Report 294A, Transportation Research Board CR] Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities .in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas State-oi'tlie- Art Report 294B, Transportation Research Board Planing Design and Maintenance of Pedestrian Facilities, Goodell-Grivas, Inc. Site Planning and Community Design for Great Neighborhoods, Frederick D. Jarvis The Car and the City, 24 Steps to Sare Streets and .Healthy Communities, Alan Thein Durning Time-Sa ver Standards for Landscape Architecture, Design and Construction Data, Charles W. Harris, Nicholas T. Dines Walk Tall, A Citizen's Guide to Walkable Communities, Version 1.0, Pedestrian Federation of America Handbook for Walkahle Communities, Washington State Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Courses, Dan Burden and Michael Wallwork, PE Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide, UNC Highway Safety Research Center for FHWA 30 PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE GUIDE, CLF: Take Back Your Streets Page 1 of 20 Cantact� - ` ""� - r'tv" uemer • vuducations • Events •Action Center • E -News • Take Back Your Streets Chapter 5 STREET SMARTS Maybe you moved into what you thought was a great new house, only to find the traffic on the road out front much more obtrusive than you ever expected. Maybe you're a parent who worries about the safety of your child on the street, or who's been worn out by driving your children everywhere because It wasn't safe for them to walk even short distances. Or maybe you're a business owner who's thought, "I wish they'd fix up this drag strip so it would attract more shoppers." If so, your time has come. Since the 1980s, communities around the nation have amassed a lot of experience In re -designing streets and roads and controlling traffic to meet concerns like yours. Putting traffic in its place has become a perfectly respectable thing to do -something that's been found to benefit a whole community, not just those who live on an isolated street here and there. Enough engineering experience has been gained that there's no need to experiment or worry that public safety vehicles can't be fully accommodated. And in some communities, people who once stood In your shoes have ended up working In state and local agencies and finding plenty of demand for community -friendly redesign. They've not only reclaimed the streets, but reclaimed part of government, too. This chapter describes "traffic calming" techniques that have been used successfully in the United States and abroad.1 When you need more details, you'll find that good sources of information have been published by, among others, the Federal Highway Administration. If you're lucky, when you start calling around for advice, you'll find someone who's knowledgeable and thinks more or less like you in your state or local transportation agency. But chances are you will encounter skepticism among public officials and will need to show them how your concerns and theirs can be addressed by good planning and engineering. The following discussion of traffic calming is based on a philosophy of co -existence. It reflects the view that cars should not be completely excluded except http://www.clforg/general/index-asp?id=389 2/2/2006 Clean Energy & Climate Change Clean Water & Healthy Forests Healthy oceans Smart Growth CLF VENTURES Take Back Your Streets Chapter 5 STREET SMARTS Maybe you moved into what you thought was a great new house, only to find the traffic on the road out front much more obtrusive than you ever expected. Maybe you're a parent who worries about the safety of your child on the street, or who's been worn out by driving your children everywhere because It wasn't safe for them to walk even short distances. Or maybe you're a business owner who's thought, "I wish they'd fix up this drag strip so it would attract more shoppers." If so, your time has come. Since the 1980s, communities around the nation have amassed a lot of experience In re -designing streets and roads and controlling traffic to meet concerns like yours. Putting traffic in its place has become a perfectly respectable thing to do -something that's been found to benefit a whole community, not just those who live on an isolated street here and there. Enough engineering experience has been gained that there's no need to experiment or worry that public safety vehicles can't be fully accommodated. And in some communities, people who once stood In your shoes have ended up working In state and local agencies and finding plenty of demand for community -friendly redesign. They've not only reclaimed the streets, but reclaimed part of government, too. This chapter describes "traffic calming" techniques that have been used successfully in the United States and abroad.1 When you need more details, you'll find that good sources of information have been published by, among others, the Federal Highway Administration. If you're lucky, when you start calling around for advice, you'll find someone who's knowledgeable and thinks more or less like you in your state or local transportation agency. But chances are you will encounter skepticism among public officials and will need to show them how your concerns and theirs can be addressed by good planning and engineering. The following discussion of traffic calming is based on a philosophy of co -existence. It reflects the view that cars should not be completely excluded except http://www.clforg/general/index-asp?id=389 2/2/2006 CLF: Take Back Your Streets from a few areas of very intense pedestrian activity. Excluding all cars or diverting most of them only makes things worse on other streets, and does a disservice not just to people who live, shop, and work on those streets, but to everyone who uses them. It's time to turn more residential streets back into places where kids can play ball, but not In a way that leaves them at risk when they leave the block. The policy of traffic calming is to let the cars come - but on terms that protect our interest in having safe, attractive, congenial places to live. The primary objective of most traffic calming techniques, including the techniques discussed below, is to slow down traffic.2 Related objectives are to make traffic flow at a steady pace rather than with frequent acceleration and deceleration, and to bring greater predictability and courtesy to the streets. As to traffic speed, how slow is slow enough? Experience has shown that on residential streets and on commercial streets where there is or should be pedestrian activity, a maximum traffic speed of about 19-25 miles per hour is necessary to ensure safety, create an environment people find conducive to walking and shopping, and minimize noise. ( See chapter 4.) On some residential streets, maximum speeds of less than 19-25 miles per hour may be appropriate to give residents more space for social and recreational activity. On arterial streets with high traffic volumes, maximum traffic speeds greater than 25 miles per hour make sense under certain circumstances: where there are few homes and little occasion for walking, shopping, and recreation, or where homes and human activity can be protected from traffic with distance and good design. However, greater speed means diminished safety, more air pollution, higher noise levels, and a more hostile environment for those on foot or bicycle. Above 30-35 miles per hour, greater speed also can mean that a road accommodates fewer vehicles per hour. ( See chapter 4.) Traffic calming techniques work in various ways. The most effective ones involve physical alterations to a street or road that prevent vehicles from traveling too fast. Making a street corner sharper so that motorists can no longer come around it at high speed is an example. Other traffic calming techniques Involve physical alterations that affect motorist psychology and provide a cue to slow down -for example, narrowed travel lanes. Some techniques achieve results without changing the street or road itself, through enforcement, education, or moral suasion. For example, a sensor can detect vehicle speed and trigger a flashing warning that notifies the motorist how fast he's going, or even automatically ticket his vehicle. http://www.clforg/general/index.asp?id=389 Page 2 of 20 2/2/2006 CLF: Take Back Your Streets The traffic calming techniques discussed below have been used extensively. This overview does not discuss every possibility. Its goal is to acquaint you with the most promising options, and to stimulate creative thinking about how these or similar techniques could be applied to a specific place in your community. Any traffic control device, of course, must be appropriately designed for a particular setting. It is important to note that, while traffic calming has been undertaken most extensively in cities, towns, and suburbs, it can also be perfectly appropriate in rural areas, wherever farms, homes, and local stores line a road.3 1. NARROW STREETS AND ROADS As explained in chapter 2, wider roads induce motorists to drive faster. On many local, collector, and arterial routes, therefore, narrowing a street or road or keeping it narrow is an important part of a speed -reduction strategy. Equally important, narrowing a pavement can protect or enhance the landscape and, in some circumstances, walking or bicycling conditions. Skinny Streets A primary way to slow down traffic is to narrow the real or perceived horizontal width of the pavement. Streets can be narrowed in various ways. A so-called "curb extension" -which widens or maybe adds a sidewalk -is generally the best and perhaps most widely used option -4 It not only slows down traffic, but shortens the crossing distance for pedestrians. The Office of Transportation in Portland, Oregon, has a "Skinny Streets" program for new residential areas. It allows residential streets to be 20 feet with parking on one side, or 26 feet with parking on both sides. A brochure publicizing the program to local residents lists the advantages of skinny streets as maintaining neighborhood character, reducing construction costs, saving vegetation, reducing stormwater runoff, improving traffic safety, and making it possible to use scarce land for purposes other than motor vehicle use. The Portland Fire Bureau finds that skinny streets that meet the program's guidelines provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Twenty feet may be an excessive width for some residential streets used only for access to residences. As demonstrated by a recently paved street in Milton, Massachusetts, a width of just 16 feet may better serve the interests of families along the street and still accommodate emergency Page 3 of 20 http://www.clforg/general/index.asp?id=389 2/2/2006 CLF: Take Back Your Streets vehicles.5 Rural roads throughout England and Scotland are often just a single lane wide, with frequent "turn -outs" for vehicles traveling in opposite directions to pass one another. Adding parallel or angled parking along one or both sides of a street is perhaps the least expensive way to narrow the street. It improves the pedestrian environment not just by slowing down traffic, but by creating a barrier between traffic and sidewalk, and it can boost retail activity along the street by providing more direct access for motorists.6 However, the availability of free or inexpensive parking is the major factor that induces commuters to drive alone rather than use alternative forms of transportation, and a parking space occupied all day by a commuter is a parking space not available to patrons of a local business) Thus new on -street parking should be metered and subject to a limit of perhaps one or two hours. On -street parking should have an adjacent bicycle lane or travel lane wide enough for motorists and bicyclists to share. Many rural roads with travel lanes 9 to 11 feet wide and one- to two -foot shoulders can and should be left at their current widths, even if they serve as arterial routes.8 Vegetation need only be cut back to the edge of the pavement, or perhaps a foot beyond. There are various ways to compensate for the long stopping sight distances and wide roadside margins of error that are the traffic engineers' traditional stock in trade. Signs, pavement markings, and other visual cues can be used to alert motorists to upcoming curves.9 Motorists' ease of navigation can be enhanced, if necessary, by using reflectorized paint for pavement lines in the center and at the edge of the road, as described below in this chapter. It may be appropriate to provide a consistent pavement width, which may mean narrowing lanes to less than 11 feet, particularly on roads that serve as local or collector routes rather than arterials.10 Planting vegetation or locating signs close to a street or road will reduce the "optical width" of a road - make it seem narrower than it is and help slow down motorists. Similarly, Dutch cities have used different paving materials or colors to make roads look narrower than they are and achieve an effect similar to that of an actual narrowing.11 American traffic engineers occasionally paint striped areas to achieve a similar effect, generally in commercial districts or around intersections. Fewer Lanes On a multiple -lane street, lanes can be narrowed to 10 or 11 feet, and often one or more lanes can be eliminated. There are at least two ways to eliminate http://www.elf.org/general/index.asp?id=3 89 Page 4 of 20 2/2/2006 CLF: Take Back Your Streets lanes. A lane In one direction or both can simply be eliminated, as Cambridge, Massachusetts, has done by widening sidewalks and adding bicycle lanes on Massachusetts Avenue in the vicinity of Central Square, and as other cities have done previously.12 An alternative approach has been taken in Seattle. On streets with two travel lanes in each direction, the Seattle Engineering Department has eliminated one lane in each direction, and created one center left turn lane and a bicycle lane in each direction on the right-hand side between the remaining travel lane and parked cars. This so-called "channelization change" has had no effect on traffic flow, but has reduced traffic speeds, reduced accidents, and improved conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians.13 Room for Bicyclists and Pedestrians Getting the street width right involves doing more than influencing traffic speed. It also means providing good travel space for bicyclists and pedestrians. In the case of bicyclists, it is important to recognize that wide paved shoulders or wide curb (right-hand) lanes can be necessary. This is particularly likely to be the case where traffic speeds are greater than 20 miles per hour, traffic volumes are heavy, or both. Although bicyclists are no less entitled to road space than motorists, simply narrowing lanes can have the practical effect of crowding out all but the boldest bicyclists and leave them squarely in the path of impatient motorists. Whether a road should have a wide shared right- hand travel lane, a wide paved shoulder, or a designated bicycle lane to accommodate bicyclists depends on the road environment, traffic volumes, and the type of bicyclists using the road.14 If a paved shoulder is provided for bicyclists, it may be possible to avoid inducing higher traffic speeds by keeping the traffic lane narrow, separating it from the shoulder or bicycle lane with a conspicuous stripe or the "retro -reflective" pavement markers often used at the edge of Interstate lanes, painting bicycle symbols on the pavement in the shoulder to establish it as off-limits to motor vehicles, and paying special attention to speed limit enforcement.15 Where a wide curb lane is relied on to provide space for bicyclists -with or without parked cars to the right -what has been called a "hybrid" bicycle lane can be provided in the form of painted pavement symbols without a stripe to delineate the precise boundary between motorists' and bicyclists' territory. 16 In cities, towns, and suburbs, pedestrians need sidewalks that are continuous, wide enough, and Page 5 of 20 http://www.clf.org/general/index.asp?id=389 2/2/2006 CLF: Take Back Your Streets sufficiently free of obstructions to provide enough useable space. Planners in San Francisco and pedestrian advocates in Boston have developed guidelines that should prove useful to anyone working for more pedestrian -friendly streets and sidewalks in other cities. 17 Guidelines exist for suburban areas, too.18 A standard reference work used by highway engineers includes "levels of service" for determining how wide walkways should be and how much waiting space is needed at intersections. 19 A well-designed streetscape is also critical. It should be created by means such as shielding sidewalks from moving traffic with on - street parking or landscaping; reducing or eliminating "set -back" requirements so that buildings with doors and windows rather than parking lots, garages, or blank walls line the sidewalk; and providing amenities such as benches and trees.20 So, exactly why do highway departments come to propose making roads wider, straighter, and flatter? Under the AASHTO guidelines, the design of a road is determined primarily on the basis of (1) its proposed "design speed," (2) its "functional classification," and (3) the traffic volumes to be accommodated in a specific future year. Because these things control design of the road, they are known as "design controls." 2. BREAKING UP STRAIGHTAWAYS Straightaways encourage speed, as do long, very gradual curves. Narrowing a street or travel lanes can help reduce traffic speeds. But it may not reduce speeds enough, particularly on a long, uninterrupted stretch, or it may reduce typical speeds adequately but leave a significant minority of irresponsible motorists traveling too fast. To gain a greater overall reduction in traffic speed or an assurance that every motorist will pass through slowly, you may need to make physical alterations that require motorists to deviate from a straight line. Options include adding a traffic circle to an intersection, adding a "chicane" ( see below), and realigning a street or road to create a jog that requires a turn. Something common to these features is that, after passing them, motorists may accelerate to excessive speeds. It can thus be important to space the features appropriately, use them in combination with other measures such as roadway narrowing or strict speed limit enforcement, or both. Traffic Circles Traffic circles, which have been installed at hundreds of residential street intersections in Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, are not the same Page 6 of 20 http://www.elf.org/general/index.asp?id=389 2/2/2006 In praise of traffic calming by Dom Nozzi For 50 years, transportation planners have treated streets as little more than conduits for motor vehicles, and see little need for roads other than to maximize motorist driving speeds. Sadly, in all except our remote subdivisions, the quality of life in cities designed for cars has become miserable. No wonder that so many flee the city for the relative safety, peacefulness, and pastoral nature of outlying areas. According to Cynthia Hoyle, the U.S. has been so successful in providing for fast, unobstructed travel by car that it has seriously undermined the use of transit, walking, and bicycling. Streets designed primarily with driving speed in mind deter people from walking and bicycling. They're difficult and unattractive places to walk or bicycle to begin with, and the heavier, faster traffic they generate makes them downright hostile. Pedestrian street crossings are challenging and infrequent, sidewalks are anything but continuous, and anyone who ventures out on a bicycle is soon reminded by an impatient honking motorist that she's in the way and doesn't belong there. "Danger" and "road conditions" or "lack of facilities" are reasons more frequently given in surveys for not bicycling. How big is the problem for Floridians? One example is the fact that 37 percent of Floridians cannot legally drive -not to mention those who cannot afford to own a car. The proposed "design speed" for a road A wide pavement exerts a strong influence over a motorist. First, it puts someone in a car at a greater distance from objects on either side. Looking at objects that are farther away creates a feeling that a vehicle is moving more slowly and prompts a motorist to compensate by speeding up. Second, by making the motorist survey a broad field in front of his vehicle, a wide pavement provides an assurance that he is in command of that field, which in turn induces him to increase his speed. In addition, when a wide pavement means more lanes, it leaves fewer vehicles in each lane and increases the distance between each vehicle, providing yet another inducement to go faster. Thus an urban arterial with three 11- or 12 -foot travel lanes, or a broad two-lane residential street, can have a virtually irresistible effect. Even motorists who are not inclined to drive fast creep up to highway speeds. Others seize the opportunity to floor it. Cutting down trees, removing other vegetation, taking property by eminent domain, and lowering hills create what traffic engineers assume is the necessary "stopping sight distance." And the design speed of a road is the primary factor determining the stopping sight distance. When a traffic engineer states the newly designed road will "improve safety," beware. While it usually means fewer fender benders, it generally leads to more serious accidents and more accidents involving pedestrians. Making a street "safer" usually tends to increase motor vehicle speeds, which makes the streets less safe for pedestrians or bicyclists. Sixteen percent of all people killed in motor vehicle accidents are pedestrians and bicyclists, which is way out of proportion to the number of pedestrians and bicyclists on the streets. Thirty-nine percent of all children killed in motor vehicle accidents are killed while walking or riding a bicycle. When we hear traffic engineers tell us that the road "improvement" will improve safety, we need to ask them to precisely define what the safety problem is. Alcohol, vehicle speed, weather, and animals are more important factors in accidents than road design. Motorists driving at 25 mph or faster have difficulty perceiving that a pedestrian is ready to cross a street, deciding to slow down, and actually doing so. The normal driver usually decides to speed up, assuming that another car will stop. Many homeowners have essentially written off their front yards as a place to be, largely because of the speed and volume of traffic. It is time that we start designing our communities for people instead of cars. And one of the emerging, exciting ways to do that is through use of "traffic calming." Traffic calming involves making design changes to a street or parking lot to slow down and "discipline" autos, and make streets mixed-use rather than single (auto) -use. Strategies include traffic circles (photo above), roundabouts (photo below), on -street parking, narrow travel lanes, reduction in travel lanes, woonerfs, traffic diverters sidewalk bulb -outs, speed humps, smaller turning radii at intersections (15 feet), and elevated/textured/brick crosswalks that serve as a speed hump. Portland, Oregon has a "skinny streets" program for new residential areas. It allows residential streets to be 20 feet wide with parking on one side, or 26 feet with parking on both sides. The city notes that such streets maintain neighborhood character, reduce construction costs, save vegetation, reduce stormwater runoff, improve traffic safety, and make it possible to use scarce land for purposes other than motor vehicle use. The Portland Fire Department finds that skinny streets provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. It has been noted that it would be more economical to purchase fire trucks that fit local streets than to build all streets to meet the needs of the largest size trucks. Berkeley studies show that traffic control devices had little or no effect on police emergency response time, and Palo Alto found that bicycle boulevard barriers had not impaired police and fire emergency response. Motorists are more likely to collide with pedestrians at higher speeds. At 60 miles per hour, the field of vision of the motorist is two-thirds less than at 30 miles per hour. In addition, the probability of a pedestrian being killed is only 3.5 percent when a vehicle is traveling at 15 miles per hour, but jumps to 37 percent at 31 miles per hour and 83 percent at 44 miles per hour. Roadway geometry in safety -sensitive areas, such as schools, should keep auto speeds within 15 to 20 miles per hour. Planting vegetation close to the street will reduce the "optical width" of a street, which makes it seem narrower than it is and help to slow down motorists. A German study found that traffic calming reduces vehicle idling time by 15 percent, gear changing by 12 percent, brake. use by 14 percent, and gasoline use by 12 percent. This is in part because the greater is speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking. Similarly, a study in Portland, Oregon found that a pedestrian -friendly environment can reduce vehicle miles traveled by 10 percent. Other studies show up to a 114 -percent increase in non -motorized travel on traffic -calmed streets. Another German study found that calmed streets experienced a 60 percent reduction in injuries, a 43 to 53 percent reduction in fatalities, and a 10 to 50 percent reduction in air pollution (Nitrogen oxide emissions, for example, begin to increase with speeds at about 15-20 mph, and then increase sharply with speed at about 48 mph.) These substantial benefits, in addition, were achieved by increasing motorist trip time by an average of only 33 seconds. Motorists who found the 18 mile -per -hour speed limit acceptable grew from 27 percent before the streets were calmed to 67 percent after the program began. Receptive residents along the streets grew from 30 percent before to 75 percent after. Portland finds that traffic circles are most effective when constructed in a series. They are sometimes also located in the middle of the block. Circles reduce motor vehicle speeds and result in a big reduction in the number of accidents. Circles reduce crashes by 50 to 90 percent when compared to two-way and four-way stop signs and traffic signals by reducing the number of conflict points. Seattle likes circles so much that they build about 30 circles each year. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) have stated that speed humps are effective in reducing vehicle speeds without increasing accident rates (some studies have found a reduction in accident rate). Humps cause motorists to experience little or no discomfort at speeds up to 25 mph, and need to be spaced close enough to each other so that motorists do not speed between them. The ITE has found that despite concerns about liability, vehicle damage and emergency vehicle impacts, these problems have not occurred or have been found to be insignificant when considering the positive impacts of humps. And despite the conventional wisdom, stop signs do not affect overall traffic speeds or control speeding. Posting appropriate speed limits and enforcing them is not sufficient to achieve needed reductions in motorist speeds. Modest physical reconfiguration of streets are the only reliable and cost-effective way to slow and control traffic. Calming also helps reduce neighborhood noise pollution. From a distance of 48 feet, a car traveling at 56 miles per hour makes ten times more noise than a car traveling at 31 miles per hour. Reducing average speed from 25 miles per hour to 12 miles per hour reduces noise levels by 14 decibels (ten times quieter). At higher speeds, every 12 to 15 miles per hour in speed increases results in a 4 to 5 decibel noise increase. The City of Oakland recently budgeted $1 million to install traffic calming measures throughout the city in response to citizen petitions for safer streets. The City has already installed speed humps and is pursuing road narrowing and barriers to through traffic. A similar strategy in Menlo Park has reduced through traffic by 66 percent, has reduced top speeds by 40 percent, and has reduced average speed by 20 percent. It is important to learn from our past in designing street intersections. For example, in the past, we designed corners with a small "radius." A corner with a radius of 15 feet or less is usually appropriate to require turning vehicles to slow down, and also shortens the distance that a pedestrian must walk to get across the street. A maximum driving speed of 19-25 mph is necessary to ensure safety, create an environment people find conducive to walking and shopping, and minimize noise. Fred Kent, a nationally known urban designer, says that in all the surveys he has done around shopping districts, the biggest problems are not security issues. They are traffic issues -the speed of vehicles, the noise of vehicles, the congestion. You realize that if you create less vehicle flow and slower vehicles, you create more of a sense of community and you increase the perception of safety and security. Here are some of the benefits that a German city found by using traffic calming. 50 percent increase in bicycle use. 57 percent reduction in fatal accidents. 45 percent reduction in severe accidents. 40 percent reduction in slight injuries. 43 percent reduction in pedestrian accidents. 16 percent reduction in cyclist accidents. 16 percent reduction in traffic accident costs. 66 percent reduction in child accidents. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has stated that traffic calming appears to be one of the more cost-effective ways to promote pedestrian and bicycle use in urban and suburban areas, where walking and bicycling are often hazardous and uncomfortable. By improving the quality of urban neighborhoods, traffic controls can help reverse the flight of the middle class away from the city. And as for children, Stina Sandels, a world authority on children and road accidents says that the best road safety education cannot adapt a child to modern traffic, so traffic must be adapted to the child. The FHA notes that the importance of reducing traffic speed cannot be overemphasized. While the overall goals of slowing traffic may include environmental improvements, better conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, accident reductions, and more space for children to play -the reduction in vehicle speeds is crucial to each. The primary question has become whether or not the city, which was formerly built on the human scale, and in which the street existed primarily as a means of contact, is to be replaced by a sprawled megalopolis where the dimensions of the street and city are on a scale required for its primary use by motorized transportation, and whether we will let our quality of life and sustainability remain terrible -all in the name of making cars happy. References: Traffic Calming by Cynthia Hoyle Traffic Calming by CART (David Engwicht) Sustainable Community Transportation by Todd Litman Taming the Automobile by Richard Untermann Take Back Your Streets by the Conservation Law Foundation Back to the Walkable Streets home page. Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency by Peter Swift ABSTRACT Communities all across the U.S. are concerned about the safety of their residential streets. Although this concern is nearly universal, the literature offers few precedents and little information on the relative safety of common residential street typologies. This study offers a method for analyzing the theory that the physical design of streets impacts safety. Through research, systematic observation, and statistical analysis, this study attempts to identify the safest residential street form with respect to several physical characteristics. These findings expose issues that need to be addressed by practitioners and policy -makers, and encourage further study of related topics. Approximately 20,000 police accident reports from the City of Longmont, Colorado were reviewed and compared against five criteria that would signify the probability that the street design contributed to the accidents. Once catalogued and entered into a database, each accident location was mapped and described by thirteen physical characteristics. Comparing injury accidents per mile per year against other factors, several correlations were explored. The most significant relationships to injury accidents were found to be street width and street curvature. The analysis illustrates that as street width widens, accidents per mile per year increases exponentially, and that the safest residential street width is 24 feet (curb face). I. Introduction II. Data Gathering and Mapping III. Accident Location Observation IV. Statistical analysis and Correlations Using this regression, a typical 36 foot wide residential street has 1.21 a/m/y (Ed: accidents/mile-year) as opposed to 0.32 for a 24 foot wide street, the street with the least a/m/y. This is about a 400 percent increase in accident rates. The a/m/y for a 30 foot wide street is 0.36. It appears that the group of streets with the safest results occur between 22 and 30 feet in curb face width. There was another interesting observation made concerning this study. Figure 2 is a graph of street width vs. ADT (Ed: average daily traffic). It shows a clustering of accidents below 1,000 ADT and between street widths of 36 to 44 feet. The most intense portion of accident frequency lies below an ADT of 500. This indicates that more accidents occur on wide streets that have low daily volumes. It also appears that a greater number of accidents occur on straight, rather than curvilinear streets. There seems to be a nexus with these observations and Farouki's conclusion (see note 1, below) that there is a greater number of accidents with an increase in vehicular speed. It is logical to assume that vehicular speeds increase with straight, wide streets of low ADT contributing to more severe accidents. It should be mentioned here that it is not the conclusion of the authors that straight streets in and of themselves have a greater accident rate. If a straight street is narrow and includes parking on both sides, the opportunity for decreasing a/m/y is enhanced. V. Conclusion This study indicates a clear relationship between accident frequency and street width and curvature. The findings support the theory that narrower, so called "skinny" streets, are safer than standard width residential streets. Since municipal code generally mandates a minimum of 36 foot wide residential streets (planned unit developments may be an exception), the results from this study indicate that current street design standards are directly contributing to automobile accidents. This brings up a larger question of public safety issues concerning fire apparatus and emergency vehicle access with narrow streets. The service reports from the Fire Department of the City of Longmont were evaluated. There were no fire related injuries or accidents during the eight year period of the study. There were fires in the older part of town during the study period that have alley access and narrow streets, but no injuries were attributed to those fires. It is suggested, therefore, that the municipal or county government look at the larger picture of public safety issues and ask if it is better to reduce dozens of potential vehicular accidents, injuries and deaths or provide wide streets for no apparent benefit to fire related injuries or deaths. Fire and EMT response times were not part of the evaluation for this paper. The authors, however, are in the process of evaluating several towns and cities in the Denver metropolitan area to see if there are any correlations of that nature in the older portions of the municipalities that include narrow streets. Lastly, we encourage additional research to verify these results. This is a relatively untouched area of potential research. In a very limited search of the literature, two studies stand out. The first indicates that the mean free speed of cars in suburban roads increases linearly with the roadway width, particularly between 17 and 37 feet. The second paper by Giese, et al, suggests that spatial enclosure, sight distance and [width] constriction techniques influence vehicle speeds. This study supports the hypothesis that injury accidents are related to vehicular speed and vehicular speed is a function of street width, ADT and alignment. Further, since posted parking did not have statistical significance in a/m/y, accident mitigation should include narrower streets and on -street parking. Notes: 1. Omar Farouki and William Nixon. 1976. "The Effect of the Width of Suburban Roads on the Mean Free Speed of Cars". Traffic Engineering and Control 17,2: 508-9. 2. Joni Giese, Gary Davis and Robert Sykes. 1997. "The Relationship Between Residential Street Design and Pedestrian Safety". Institute of Transportation Engineers Compendium of Technical Papers on CD-ROM. Patrick Siegman I. "In Search of Cheap and Skinny Streets", was written by Terence L. Bray and Victor F. Rhodes, and published in the Summer 1997 issue of Places. It was in a special issue devoted entirely to streets, titled "Streets: Old Paradigm, New Investment " , and is really worth tracking down. II. Thanks to the fine work of Alan B. Cohen of the CNU Transportation Task Force, and Randy S. McCourt of DKS Associates in Portland, Oregon, there are now two databases available on the Web of cities which have adopted reduced width street standards. Both are works in progress, but together contain some 25 examples, complete with contact names and phone numbers. 1) Alan B. Cohen's 'Narrow Streets Database' is the most accessible and easy to read. It can be found at: www.sonic.net abcaia narrow.htm 2) Randy McCourt's survey results are part of a much larger survey on neighborhood traffic management, sent to over 1000 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) members. It covers both narrow streets and many other traffic calming measures. Of particular note: the 120 agencies who responded to the survey reported that they encounter well over 1,500 lawsuits a year regarding various transportation related issues. Only 6 lawsuits were identified in this survey group to be associated with their traffic calming devices, and the 15 agencies using narrow street standards reported that there were no lawsuits at all associated with their narrower street standards. Alan Cohen would appreciate hearing from all those with more information to contribute. Please write him at: abcaia@sonic.net III. I put together the following quotes from J. Kevin Keck's "Caught in the Middle: The Fight for Narrow Residential Streets" [Proceedings of the ITE 14th International Conference (1998)] for a client seeking relief from overly wide street standards. They briefly summarize some of the latest narrow street standards and research from around the country. Included are some measured effects on driver's speeds; narrowing existing streets (with no landscape strip) by adding landscape strips between the sidewalk and the street; and the relationship between street width and housing costs. Street Width Standards and Research from Around the Country 1) Table 1: Example Residential Street Width Standards (California) Location and Street Type ROW Width Pave Width Parking Direction Portland, Oregon .......... Location and Street Type I ROW Width I Pave Width I Parking I Direction r 300' long 35' 9 units per acre 35' Standard Residential 40'* * 56' with sidewalks Madison, WI 18' (None 2 -way 20' 1 -side 2 -way 24' 2 -sides 2 -way Location & Street Type yp I ROW Width_......_...._ .......�.......___..1111...._�...__._..............w__m_....___..., Pave Width I! Parking Direction y 3 units per acre 40 27' 2 -sides 2 -way 3-10 units per acre 56' 28' 2 -sides 2 -way Novato, CA Location & Street Type I ROW Width Pave Width ( Parking Direction Serves 2-4 dwellings 25' 20' 2 -sides 2 -way Serves 5-15 dwellings 40' 28' F2 sides 2 -way San Jose, CA Location & Street Type ' ROW Width l Pave Width Parking 6 Direction 50' 124'-36' ** 12 -sides 12 -way ** Narrows to 24' at tree planters forming parking bays. (Used in Evergreen Planned Residential Community.) Dublin, CA Location & Street Type I ROW Width ( Pave Width I Parking I Direction 50' 124'-36' *** 2 -sides 12 -way *** Two opposing five foot wide tree planters located every 100' reduce the effective street width by 10'. (Used in Kaufman & Broad Creekside Residential Development.) [Source: J. Kevin Keck, "Caught in the Middle: The Fight for Narrow Residential Streets", Proceedings of the ITE 14th International Conference (1998). The table above summarizes several tables in Mr. Keck's paper.] 2) Street Widths and Traffic Speeds: Phoenix AZ Just as wider streets encourage higher speeds, narrower street clearances have been shown to effect a reduction in average vehicle speeds. Residential streets with parked vehicles have been observed to experience lower average vehicle speeds. In Phoenix, it was reported that the most effective traffic calming measure was a narrowing of neighborhood streets to 28 feet from 32 feet, adding a landscaped strip between the sidewalk and curb. Neighborhood traffic calming includes lots of tools. Many focus on somehow narrowing the width of the street. "The wider you go," observed, a Phoenix traffic engineering supervisor, "the more you're encouraging fast traffic." [Ingley Kathleen, "Calming The Mean Streets: Strategy To Slow Drivers Brings Neighbors Peace", Arizona Republic, March 31, 1997, Pg. Al] 3) Street Width vs. Housing Cost & Supply A report by the University of Wisconsin-MadisonCenter for Urban Land Economics Research indicated that in rapidly growing Waukesha County (immediately west of Milwaukee County), overly generous street width requirements have served to reduce the prevalence of $75,000 - and -under houses from 16% of the average subdivision in 1990 to "virtually none" today. The report surmised that communities do not realize how much land they use up by requiring wider streets, and found that each 10 feet of required street width reduces the supply of homes by 3 to 4 percentage points. [University of Wisconsin -Madison Center for Urban Land Economics Research report by Richard K. Green, cited by Derus, Michelle, "Zoning can curb lower-cost housing: UW study of Waukesha County blames wide streets, broad lots", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 21, 1997 Sunday, Business Pg. 1] 4) Smaller Residential Streets Reduce Speeds In the San Francisco area, an extensive survey of residential streets was conducted with magnetic imaging counters that were able to collect a broader range of data. In addition to the data obtained from the device, parking density information was also collected concurrently. The analysis indicated the following results: • Wider residential streets experience higher speeds for both the average and 85th percentile speeds. • On street parking density significantly affects speeds. • Traffic volume and vehicle headways affect speeds. • Significant reductions in effective street width are required to dramatically reduce speeds. [Daisa James M. and John B. Peers, Narrow Residential Streets: Do They Really Slow Down Speeds?, ITE 5th Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers (1997)] 5) Factors Affecting Residential Street Speeds One of the most interesting aspects of the research is the multidisciplinary approach that some have taken to resolve the issues of narrow streets. Traffic engineers, planners, landscape architects, demographers have worked together to re-examine previous assumptions. In Minneapolis/St. Paul a multidisciplinary team explored the influence of streetscape's "spatial enclosure" on vehicle speeds. Such constrictions may include lateral constraints such as reduced street widths, as well as vista terminations such as those at the ends of a short street. [Giese Joni L. Gary A. Davis, and Robert D. Sykes, The Relationship Between Residential Street Design and Pedestrian Safety, ITE 6th Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers (1997)] big roads are less safe Page 1 of 3 Improving Traffic Safety Reducing Deaths and Injuries through Safer Streets Decoding Transportation Policy and Practice Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1/30/03 Despite the gains that have been made in traffic safety programs in the U.S. over the last several decades through a crackdown on drunk driving, increased seatbelt usage, and the more widespread use of airbags, traffic crashes are still the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 4 and 33. In 2001, 42,116 Americans were killed in traffic collisions, up slightly from the 41,945 killed in 2000. Of those killed in 2001, 4,955 were pedestrians and 728 were bicyclists. These tragic deaths occurred even as states failed to spend nearly $1 billion in federal funds specifically allocated for improving traffic safety. The reauthorization of the nation's surface transportation funding bill, TEA -21 offers a significant new opportunity to improve traffic safety and save lives. Traffic Fatalities On average, nearly 15 out of every 100,000 Americans are killed in traffic collisions each year. Three million more are injured. Most of those killed are drivers or passengers, however pedestrians and bicyclists make up about 14 percent of all traffic deaths. Some states are far more dangerous for those bicycling, walking, riding in, or driving a car. Wyoming, with 34 people killed in traffic accidents per 100,000 residents - more than twice the national average - is the most dangerous of any state in the nation. Mississippi ranks second with more than 30 traffic deaths per 100,000 residents. States which are relatively safe for car drivers and passengers, may still be unsafe for the most vulnerable users of the transportation system - bicyclists and pedestrians. The state of Florida, for example, falls just about in the middle in its ranking for total traffic fatalities per 100,000 residents. But when pedestrians and bicyclists are broken out of those total numbers, Florida emerges as the most dangerous state in the country, with 3.73 bicyclists and pedestrians killed per 100,000 residents on an annual basis. This statistic is especially alarming given the 29 percent decline in bicycling and walking in that state over the last ten years. Speed Kills The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that excessive speeding is a factor in nearly onethird of all traffic fatalities and that the most dangerous roads are those with posted speed limits of 60 mph or higher. Speeding in residential areas is also a major cause of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities - chances of survival if hit by a vehicle traveling at 20 mph are 95 percent, yet drop to 50 percent at 30 mph and just 15 percent at 40 mph. The Debate over Design http://www.walkablestreets.com/improve.htm 2/2/2006 big roads are less safe Page 2 of 3 Engineers have traditionally responded to traffic safety concerns by proposing the construction of wider and straighter roads. However, recent studies have started to question whether bigger is really better. In fact, new research is suggesting just the opposite - that lower-cost techniques may be more effective and that traditional "safety improvements" such as larger and straighter roads with longer sight lines may actually lead to increases in fatalities and injuries because they encourage higher travel speeds. One study in particular (R. Noland), found that infrastructure improvements such as road widenings resulted in 1,700 additional deaths and 300,000 additional injuries. Traffic fatalities per mile driven (VMT) have declined steadily over the past decade. But the reduction in fatalities has coincided with safer cars and trucks (i.e., airbags), increased seat belt use, and improved medical technology, particularly in emergency room care. These factors, along with demographic changes (fewer young people who tend to have much higher accident rates) and behavioral changes (declines in drunk driving) deserve much of the credit for reduced traffic deaths. In cities and suburbs across the U.S., a new generation of traffic safety programs are combining a variety of approaches, all of which rethink traditional road design practices: a move to narrower streets, installation of landscaped medians, street trees, and on -street parking, the addition of bike lanes, pedestrian islands, new raised and lighted crosswalks, and in some cases a conversion from four travel lanes to two with dedicated turning pockets. All of these techniques have been found to curb speeding, reduce crash rates and improve traffic flow (Burden and Lagerwey). The Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) recently acknowledged this turnaround in thinking by publishing a new manual on "traffic calming" measures that can help reduce speeding in cities and suburbs. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has also recognized this shift in approach and recommends better traffic signal timing and visibility, improved pedestrian and bicycling facilities, installation of skid -resistant pavements, appropriate speed limits, and the use of traffic calming measures such as speed humps and roundabouts to boost safety. A study of roundabouts by IIHS found that they can reduce fatal crashes by as much as 90 percent, injury collisions by as much as 76 percent, and pedestrian crashes by 50 percent. A roundabout installed in Bradenton Beach, Florida, offers strong evidence of traffic calming's effectiveness. Where there had previously been one pedestrian fatality per year at the site, in the nine years following installation of the roundabout there have been no reported crashes, let alone fatalities or injuries of motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists. Trends in Spending Whether redesigning roads for safer speeds or pursuing other lower cost measures such as improved signalization, traffic calming, new roadway markings, signage and lowered speed limits, reducing traffic fatalities and injuries will require continuing investment and political will. Yet despite the more than 40,000 traffic deaths per year on the nation's roadways, states' spending behavior indicates that they have not made broader safety improvements a priority. Under TEA -21 and its predecessor, ISTEA, ten percent of a state's Surface Transportation Program (STP) apportionment is reserved for safety programs. This includes significant funding for the elimination of hazardous railway - highway crossings, as well as funds for the identification and removal of other hazards, including those to bicyclists and pedestrians. Traffic calming is an eligible activity, and California's innovative Safe Routes to School program, which improves walking and bicycling conditions near schools, is also funded through this program. Over the last ten years, states received $4.8 billion dollars in federal funds under this program. Unfortunately, a quirk in the federal transportation funding program allows states to underfund any of http://www.walkablestreets.com/improve.htm 2/2/2006 big roads are less safe Page 3 of 3 the apportioned programs, such as the STP safety program, while overspending on others. The Safety Program is one that states have chosen to underfund, letting nearly $1 billion in federal funds specifically provided to improve traffic safety go unspent.* Apart from the specific Safety Program, states may spend a significant portion of other federal transportation program funds on projects or facilities that improve safety for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. But even as lawmakers call for improving traffic safety, the portion of federal funds dedicated to these overall safety improvements from 1998 to 2001 (the first four years of spending under TEA -21) declined by nearly 20 percent from the previous period under ISTEA (1992 to 1997). Conclusion The upcoming reauthorization of TEA -21 offers an excellent opportunity to make improving traffic safety a real priority. Legislators working on the bill should close the loophole which allows states to spend federal funds intended for safety on other programs. Additional incentives should be put in place to encourage states to address safety concerns with less costly traffic calming measures and signalization improvements. Safe Routes to School, which makes it safer for children to walk or bicycle to school, should be adopted as a national program, and supported with federal funding. Finally, the Federal Highway Administration and the states should require a more rigorous analysis of expected safety benefits of roadway expansion before projects can be justified on that basis. *For more information on this practice, see STPP's decoder, "The Transportation Funding Loophole: How states underfund federal programs," available at http://www.transact.org. Back to the Walkable Streets home page. http://www.walkablestrects.com/improve.htm 2/2/2006 Dan Burden's 25 principles for healthy neighborhood street design: 1. Limited neighborhood size which includes schools, parks and small commercial districts. 2. Rectilinear or grid pattern to interconnect streets and mix of street types. 3. Short blocks. 4. Trees, on -street parking and minimal front yards to create the feeling of a more enclosed space, or 'outdoor room", 5. Rectilinear streets with short blocks disperse traffic. 6. Narrow streets, neck downs, tight curves to reduce vehicle speeds. 7. 9-10 foot wide travel lanes. 8. Narrower intersections with smaller turning radii to reduce vehicle speeds. 9. Tee intersections afford terminating vistas and fewer possible vehicle -vehicle and vehicle -pedestrian conflicts. 10. Tight curves with prominent buildings or other terminating vistas to slow traffic. 11. On -street parking to slow traffic and shield pedestrians. 12. Nature strips, landscaping and trees in the center and along the curb. 13. Sidewalks on both sides of the street. 14. Curbs to deter parking on sidewalks on most streets. 15. Street furniture, such as benches, waste containers, flower and shrub planters, trees, bollards, lampposts and kiosks, and pocket parks to encourage walking. 16. Street lighting. 17. Bus stops with benches and shade, and with bulbouts: sidewalks widened into the parking lane to prevent parking at the bus stop and to facilitate bus reentry into traffic.. 18. Well -marked crosswalks, with medians on wider streets. 19. Low curb radii where streets intersect to make turns tight and slow. 20. Trimmed landscaping or set -back buildings to provide adequate sight triangles at corners. 21. Bikes supported with bike lanes on wider streets, and bicycle signal preference or speed tables and medians where bike trails intersect streets. 22. Remove snow from sidewalks. 23. Emergency vehicles have more access routes with gridded streets and alleys. 24. Underground utilities under streets, walks or trails. 25. Design conflicts "should be resolved in favor of the non -vehicular users". Victoria Transport Policy Institute Website: www,vtpi.org Email: Info[vtpi.org 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 'Efficiency - Equity - Clarity' Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts by Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute 7 December, 1999 Abstract This paper describes a framework for evaluating traffic calming programs. Potential benefits include road safety, increased comfort and mobility for non -motorized travel, reduced environmental impacts, increased neighborhood interaction, and increased property values. Traffic calming can help create more livable communities and reduce suburban sprawl. Traffic calming costs can include project expenses, liability claims, vehicle delay, traffic spillover, problems for emergency and service vehicles, driver frustration, and problems for bicyclists and visually impaired pedestrians. Traffic calming tends to provide the greatest benefits to pedestrians, bicyclists and local residents, while imposing the greatest costs on motorists who drive intensively (i.e., as fast as possible). Traffic calming tends to increase horizontal equity by reducing the external costs imposed by motor vehicles and improving the balance between different uses of public streets. Traffic calming tends to increase vertical equity because it benefits people who are physically, economically and socially disadvantaged, while imposing the greatest disbenefits on relatively wealthy, higher mileage drivers. Each traffic calming project is unique, so each project should be evaluated individually. It is important to avoid double counting. Sensitivity analysis can be used to test whether conclusions are reliable under a range of possible scenarios. 01997-1999 Todd Alexander Litman All Rights Reserved Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Introduction During the last century roads have been widened and straightened to accommodate more and faster vehicle traffic. These changes facilitate driving but often degrade conditions for walking, cycling, and for nearby residents. Even during the early years of motor vehicle use some neighborhoods resisted increased traffic,' and this opposition has increased in recent years. Traffic calming is the name for road design strategies to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes.3 There are many potential traffic calming strategies, as indicated in Table 1. Traffic calming projects can range from, a few minor changes to neighborhood streets to major rebuilding of a street network. Impacts range from moderate speed reductions on residential streets, to arterial design changes,4 and woonerfs (residential streets with minimal traffic speeds).' Traffic calming is becoming well accepted by transportation professional organizations and urban planners.6 Some people love traffic calming, some hate it, and others have mixed feelings. Advocates argue that traffic calming protects residents, pedestrians and bicyclists from externalities imposed by motor vehicle traffic, and allows residential and commercial streets to better balance their multiple uses. Critics argue that it wastes resources, that it imposes an unfair burden on drivers, that it simply shifts traffic impacts from one street to another, and that it does more harm than good.' Many of the concerns about traffic calming relate to specific devices, such as speed humps or chokers, rather than the general concept of changing street designs to reduce traffic speeds. These can often be addressed by expanding the range of strategies considered and using the most appropriate strategy in each particular situation. This paper provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the benefits and costs of traffic calming programs. This can help determine whether traffic calming is justified, improve project designs, and identify who should bear project costs. ' Stephen Goddard, Getting There, Basic Books (New York), 1994. 2 David Engwicht, Reclaiming our Cities and Towns; Better Living with Less Traffic, New Society Publishing (Philadelphia; www.slonet.org/—canderso/dee.html), 1993. 3 Ian Lockwood, "ITE Traffic Calming Definition," ITE Journal, July 1997,.pp. 22-25. 4 Dan Burden and Peter Lagerwey, Road Diets; Fixing the Big Roads, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org), 1999; Ian Lockwood, "A Traffic Calming Plan for Route 50," Transportation Planning, American Planning Association, Vol. 23, No. 3, Fall 1997, pp. 1-8. 5 Eran Ben -Joseph, "Changing the Residential Street Scene: Adapting the Shared Street Concept to the Suburban Environment," Journal of the Am. PlanningAsso., Vol. 61, No. 4, Autumn 1995, pp. 504-515. 6 Wolfgang Homburger, et al., Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, ITE (Washington DC; www.ite.org), 1989; Residential Streets, American Society of Civil Engineers and National Association of Home Builders (Washington 'DC), 1990; Canadian Guide To Traffic Calming, TAC (Ottawa; www.tac- atc.ca), 1999. 7 Say "NO" to Traffic Obstruction!, National Motorists Association (www.motorists.com); Americans Against Traffic Calming (www.io.com/—bumper/ada.btm). Trak Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Table 1 Menu of Traffic Calming Strategies and Devices8 Type Description Applications Impacts Arterials Local Volumes Seeds Speed limits Reduced speed limits. ✓ ✓ Yes Yes Speed alert, enforcement Radar -clocked traffic speeds displayed to drivers. Strong speed limit enforcement. ✓ ✓ No Yes Vehicle restrictions Limiting vehicle types (trucks) or users (residents only) on specific roads. ✓ ✓ Yes No Warning signs and gateways Signs & gateways indicating changing road conditions, traffic calming, residential or commercial districts. ✓ ✓ No Yes Speed tables, raised crosswalks Ramped surface above roadway, 7-10 cm high, 3-6 in long. With caution ✓ Possible I Yes Median island Raised island in the road center (median) narrows lanes and provides pedestrian with a safe place to stop. ✓ ✓ No Yes Channelization islands A raised island that forces traffic in a particular direction, such as right -turn -only. ✓ ✓ Possible Yes Speed hums Curved 7-10 cm high, 3-4 in long hump. ✓ ✓ Possible Yes Rumble Strips Low bumps across road make noise when driven over. ✓ ✓ No Yes Mini -circles Small traffic circles at intersections. ✓ Possible Yes Roundabouts Medium to large circles at intersections. ✓ Yes Pavement treatments Special pavement textures (cobbles, bricks, etc.) and markings to designate special areas. ✓ ✓ Not Likely Yes Bike lanes Marking bikelanes narrows traffic lanes. ✓ ✓ No Possible Curb extensions bulbs, chokers). Extending curb a half -lane into the street to control traffic and reduce pedestrian crossing distances. ✓ ✓ Possible Yes "Road diets" Reducing the number of traffic lanes. ✓ Yes Yes Lane narrowings, "pinchpoints" Curb extensions, planters, or centerline traffic islands that narrow traffic lanes. Also called "chokers." ✓ ✓ Not Likely Yes Horizontal shifts Lane centerline that curves or shifts. ✓ ✓ No Yes Chicanes Curb bulges or planters (usually 3) on alternating sides, forcing motorists to slow down. ✓ Possible Yes 2 -lanes narrow to 1- lane Curb bulge or center island narrows 2 -lane road down to 1 - lane, forcing traffic for each direction to take turns. ✓ Possible Yes Semi-diverters, partial closures Restrict entry/exit to/from neighborhood. Limit traffic flow at intersections. ✓ ✓ Yes Possible Street closures Closing off streets to through vehicle traffic at intersections or midblock ✓ Yes Yes Stop signs Additional stop signs, such as 4 -way -stop intersections. ✓ Possible Yes "Neotraditional" street design Streets with narrower lanes, shorter blocks, T -intersections, and other design features to control traffic speed and volumes. ✓ ✓ Yes I Yes TDM Various strategies to reduce total motor vehicle use. ✓ ✓ Yes No Woonerf Very low -speed residential streets with mixed vehicle and pedestrian traffic. ✓ Yes Yes This table summarizes common traffic calming strategies and devices, indicating suitable applications and impacts. Trak calming projects often involve several measures. 'Based on Carman Hass -Klan, et al, Civilised Streets; A Guide to Traffic Calming, Environmental and Transport Planning (Brighton, UK), 1992; Joseph Savage, R. David MacDonald and John Ewell, A Guidebookfor Residential Trak Management, WSDOT (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov), 1994; Making Streets that Work, City of Seattle (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm , 1996; Pat Noyes, Trak Calming Primer, Pat Noyes & Associates (Boulder; pat(a),,pdp nrog.com), 1998. Trak Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Traffic calming design is an art and science. Some strategies, such as four-way stopsigns, quickly lose their effectiveness without strict enforcement. Vehicle restrictions (such as prohibiting trucks on a particular road) may raise legal and logistical issues. Because of possible spillover effects (discussed later in this paper) it may be important to implement an overall traffic management plan, which includes traffic calming. Roundabouts & Traffic Circles There are three types of roundabouts (also called "traffic circles"): 1. Big old ones, such as Picadilly Circus in London and Dupont Circle in Washington DC, which have lots of traffic lanes, lots of confusion, and lots of problems for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. They exist primarily to provide a dramatic site for a large monument. 2. Modern Roundabouts, are modest in size, are limited to a single circular traffic lane, and require vehicles entering that lane to slow to about 15 mph maximum and yield. They are widely promoted by traffic engineers as an efficient and safer alternative to signaled intersections. 3. Mini Roundabouts, are small (usually 10-25 feet in diameter) traffic circles placed in existing low-volume intersections as traffic calming devices. They reduce traffic speeds and crashes. Traffic calming can be incorporated into new developments using "neotraditional" neighborhood street design. This uses a network of trough streets (as opposed to a hierarchical road system with many dead end streets and cul de sacs) with narrow street widths, shorter block lengths, "tee" intersections, and other design features to control vehicle speeds and volumes.9 Table 2 summarizes typical street dimensions for neotraditional neighborhoods, which are much narrower than has been used in most new developments during the last half century. Table 2 Narrow Residential Street Standards From Selected Communities10 city Street Type ROW Width Parking Direction Portland, OR a Dead End Streets <300' long 35' 18' None 2 -way b < 9 units per acre 35' 20' 1 -side 2 -way c) Standard Residential 40'* 24' 2 -sides 2 -way Madison, WI a <3 units per acre 40' 27' 2 -sides 2 -way b 3-10 units per acre 56' 28' 2 -sides 2 -way Novato, CA a Serves 2-4 dwellin s 25' 20' 2 -sides 2 -way b Serves 5-15 dwellings 40' 28' 2 -sides 2 -way San Jose, CA Unspecified 50' 24'-36'** 2 -sides 2 -way Dublin, CA Unspecified 50' 26'-36'*** 1 2 -sides 2 -way 56' with sidewalks ** Narrows to 24' at tree planters forming parking bays. * * * Two opposing five foot wide tree planters located every 100' reduce the effective street width by 10'. 9 Dan Burden, Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities, Local Government Commission (Sacramento; www.1--c.org/�cip), 1999.; Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Publ. No. RP -027 (Washington DC; www.ite.org , 1998. ' ° J. Kevin Keck, Caught in the Middle: The Fight for Narrow Residential Streets, Proceedings of the ITE 14th International Conference, 1998. Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Estimating Travel Impacts An important factor in evaluating traffic calming projects is the number of trips that are affected. The number of automobile trips affected is usually easy to determine since most communities have good motor vehicle traffic data. It may be more difficult to determine the number of non -motorized trips affected because they are usually undercounted. Some travel surveys exclude non -motorized trips altogether, and when included they are undercounted because walking and cycling trips are often short, non -work, recreational trips, or involve children. Automatic traffic counters do not record non -motorized travel, and manual counts usually focus on arterial streets, ignoring popular walking and cycling routes on minor streets. Walking and cycling links of trips involving a motor vehicle are also ignored. For example, "walk -auto -walk," or "walk -transit -walk" trips are usually classified simply as "auto' or "transit," even if walking takes place on a roadway. Extra effort is needed to gather accurate data on non -motorized travel. There is considerable latent demand for non -motorized travel. That is, people would walk and bicycle more if they had suitable conditions. One market survey found that 80% of Canadians would like to walk more, and 66% would like to cycle more than they currently do." A Harris poll found that 70% of U.S. adults want better facilities for non -motorized transport. 12 Communities and shopping districts that accommodate non -motorized transportation are popular with residents and customers. Improving pedestrian security (protection from accidents and crimes) is important for increasing travel choices.13 Traffic calming can be an important part of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs by creating streets that are more suitable for walking, bicycling and public transit. 14 Transit and rideshare passengers rely on walking or cycling for mobility at their destinations. A grid -street network reduces trip distances and congestion by providing more direct routes then a branched street network that concentrates all traffic on a few routes.15 But many people prefer living on a cul de sac rather than a through street to avoid traffic impacts. Traffic calming allows communities to have the best of both worlds: a grid street network with limited traffic speeds and volumes. This allows older urban neighborhoods to have attractive street environments that are otherwise only be available in more automobile -dependent suburban locations. Traffic calming is therefore key to creating grid street patterns and encouraging urban infill, both of which reduce automobile use. " Environics, National Survey on Active Transportation, Go for Green, (www.goforgreen.ca), 1998. 12 Cited in Trails for Transportation, National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse Technical Assistance Series, Number 3 (www.bikeped.org), 1995. 13 Social Research Associates, Personal Security Issues in Pedestrian Journeys, UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (London; www.mobilily-unit.detr.gov.ukipsi), 1999. 14 Todd Litman, Potential TDMStrategies, VTPI (www. i.org), 1999. 15 Reid Ewing, Best Development Practices, Planners Press (www.planning.org), 1996. 4 Trak Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Table 3 Daily Tri s Per Household" Rural Suburban Urban Avera Walk 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.6 Bicycle 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Non -Motorized 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.7 Transit 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.4 Auto Passenger 3,5 2.7 2.8 2.7 Auto Driver 7.8 6.6 6.3 6.4 Total, All Modes 12.2 10.1 12.1 10.1 Residents in neighborhoods with suitable street environments tend to walk and bicycle more," ride transit more,' a and drive less than comparable households in other areas. 19 One study found that residents in a pedestrian friendly community walked, bicycled, or rode transit for 49% of work trips and 15% of their non -work trips, 18- and 11 - percentage points more than residents of a comparable automobile oriented community.20 Another study found that walking is three times more common in a community with pedestrian friendly streets than in otherwise comparable communities that are less conducive to foot travel.21 U.S. Households average 0.7 non -motorized trips per day overall, but more than twice this amount in urban neighborhoods, which tend to be more suitable to walking, as indicated in Table 3, and Figure 1. In recent years various techniques have been developed to help evaluate pedestrian and cycling conditions and predict the effect of changes on non -motorized travel .�z For example, the Bicycle Compatibility Index developed for the Federal Highway Administration can be used to evaluate the benefits to cycling that result from changes in road and traffic conditions.23 Similarly, the Pedestrian Environmental Factor (PEF) can be used to assess conditions for pedestrians." 161995 National Personal Transportation Survey, USDOT www-Aa.ornl-gov/cgi/npt ). " Rhys Roth, Getting People Walking: Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian Travel, WSDOT (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm), 1994. '$ Project for Public Spaces, Transit -Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities, TCRP Report 33, TRB (Washington DC; www.nas.edu/trb), 1998. 19 Parsons Brinckerhoff, The Pedestrian Environment, 1000 Friends of Oregon (Portland; www.teleport.com/-friends , 1993; Andrew Clarke, Traffic Calming, Auto -Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management Techniques: Their Effects on Bicycling and Pedestrians, National Bicycling and Walking Study, #19, FHWA (Washington DC; www.bikefed.ore), 1994. 20 Robert Cervero and Carolyn Radisch, Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods, UC Transportation Center, UCTC 281 (htt ://s ocrates.berkele .edu/ uctc), 1995. 2' Anne Vernez Moudon, et al., Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed Use, Medium - Density Environments, Washington State Transportation Center (Seattle), 1996. 22 Bicycle/Pedestrian Trip Generation Workshop: Summary, FHWA (www.tthrc.gov), 1996. z3 David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex Sorton, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway Administration (www.hsrc.unc.edu/research/t)edbikeibci), 1998. 14 PBQD, The Pedestrian Environment, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.teleRort.com/-friends) 1993. Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Figure I Average Daily Trips Per Household by Neighborhood Type 25 L 12 Q a N 10 CL 0 8 �+ t N 6 O � ° 4 �Y 7 2 a Suburban Traditional ®Walk O Bicycle O Transit ®Auto Passenger ■Auto Driver Vehicle trips per household are significantly higher in suburban communities due to lower densities and fewer travel choices. If more precise modeling is not feasible, a reasonable assumption is that traffic calming which significantly improves walking and cycling conditions can increase non -motorized trips in an area by 10-20% from what would otherwise occur, and that half of these trips substitute for motor vehicle trips. Thus, if per household non -motorized trips currently average 1.8 per day (typical in urban neighborhoods), comprehensive traffic calming could increase this to 2.0-2.2, and reduce 0.1-0.2 motor vehicle trips per day. The following factors influence how much a traffic calming project will affect travel: • Magnitude of change. The more traffic calming improves pedestrian and cycling conditions, the more it will affect travel. Traffic calming that significantly reduces a barrier to non - motorized travel (for example, by making it easier to walk across an arterial from one major commercial center to another or creating a pleasant bicycle travel corridor where none otherwise exists) may have significant travel impacts in an area. • Demand. A greater effect is likely to occur where traffic calming is implemented near major pedestrian and cycling generators: residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, schools, and recreation centers. • Integration with other improvements. Traffic calming can have synergetic impacts with other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and land use changes that support walking, cycling and transit. For example if traffic calming is implemented with sidewalk and bikepath improvements, parking management, and improved public transit service, the effects are often greater than the sum of what individual strategies could achieve. • Land use effects. Over the long term, traffic calming can support land use patterns that further reduce automobile use and automobile dependency, such as more neighborhood shops and activity centers. zs Bruce Friedman, Stephen Gordon, John Peers, "Effect of Neotraditional Neighborhood Design on Travel Characteristics," Transportation Research Record, #1466, 1995, pp. 63-70. Gal Trac Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Benefits and Costs This section explores benefits and costs that frequently result from traffic calming. Benefits 1. Increased Road Safety Reducing traffic speeds and volumes can reduce the severity and severity of vehicle crashes, particularly those involving pedestrians and bicyclists. 26 Each 1 -mph traffic speed reduction typically reduces vehicle collisions by 5%, and fatalities by an even greater amount. 17 Travelling at 40 mph, the average driver who sights a pedestrian in the road 100 feet ahead will still be travelling 38 mph on impact: driving at 25 mph, the driver will have stopped before the pedestrian is struck.28 Pedestrian injury severity increases with the square of vehicle speed, as indicated in Figure I. The probability of pedestrians receiving fatal injuries when hit by a motor vehicle is 3.5% at 15 mph, 37% at 31 mph and 83% at 44 mph .29 Researcher Gary Davis. developed a method for predicting pedestrian accident and injury risk .30 Figure I Impact Speed Versus Pedestrian Injury 31 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 Vehicle Miles Per Hour Risk to pedestrians and cyclists increases with traffic speed. 26 C.N. Kloeden, A.J. McLean, V.M. Moore and G. Ponte, Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement, NHMRC (Adelaide; http;//plato.raru.adelaide.edu.au/speed/index.html), 1998; Jack Stuster and Zail Coffman, Synthesis Of Safety Research Related To Speed And Speed Limits, FHWA No. FHWA- RD-98-154 (www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm), 1998; "Pedestrian Safety," Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Oregon DOT (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/Rlanimaedestm.htLn). 27 D.J. Finch, P. Kompfner, C.R. Lockwood and G. Maycock, Speed, Speed Limits and Accidents, Transport Research Laboratory (www.trl.co.uk), Report 58, 1994. 28 A.J. McLean, RWG Anderson, MJB Farmer, BH Lee and CG Brooks, Vehicle Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions - Volume 1. Federal Office of Road Safety, Australia. 29 Rudolph Limpert, Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Cause Analysis, Fourth Edition, Michie Company, Charlottesville, 1994, p. 663. 30 Gary Davis, "Method for Estimating Effect of Traffic Volume and Speed on Pedestrian Safety for Residential Streets," Transportation Research Record 1636, 1998, pp. 110-115. 31 Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines, Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.ore), June 1997, p. 18. 7 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts How Quickly A Motorist Can Stop32 Take speed in MPH and multiply by 1.5 to get the approximate feet traveled per second. Drivers typically require about 2.5 seconds to react to a hazard. At 40 MPH, that's 60 feet per second travel speed, which requires about 150 feet of travel before the driver even steps on the brakes. The faster a vehicle travels the longer its stopping distance and the greater its potential for causing damage and injuries if it hits another road user. Other researchers- conclude that, "small reductions in traveling speed translate into large reductions in impact speed in pedestrian collisions, often to the extent of preventing the collisions altogether. ,33 They predict that a 5 km/h reduction in urban traffic speeds could reduce pedestrian fatalities by 30%. In 10% of cases the collisions would be avoided and in 20% an otherwise fatal collision would become non-fatal, with comparable reductions in severity for non-fatal accidents. The researchers find that limiting speed reductions to residential areas would have a much smaller benefit, since more than 85% of fatal pedestrian collisions occur on non -local roads such as arterials. Eliminating driving above the posted speed limits would reduce an estimated 13% of pedestrian fatalities. Another study using a database of 20,000 residential -area automobile accidents found that crash rates (annual crashes per mile) increased as street width increased beyond 24 -feet between curbs, particularly on straighter streets with lower traffic volumes, where average traffic speeds tend to be highest.34 The analysis indicates that accident rates are approximately 18 times higher on a 48 -foot width street compared with a 24 -foot street. With any traffic safety program it is important to consider the possibility of "offsetting behavior." If drivers, bicyclists or pedestrians feel safer they may become less cautious and "offset" a portion of crash reduction benefits.35 It is therefore important to use empirical as well as theoretical evidence to determine traffic safety effectiveness. Experience indicates that traffic calming programs do significantly reduce traffic crash frequency and severity.36 Studies show long-term crash and injury reductions of 15-40%, 32 Michael Ronkin, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation. 39 A.J. McLean, et al., "Vehicle Travel Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions," Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 5, 1997, pp. 667-674. 34 Peter Swift, Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency, Swift and Associates (Longmont), 31 March 1998. 35 Gerald Wilde, Target Risk, PDE Publications (Toronto; htt :// s c. ueensu.ca/tar et), 1994; Robert Chirinko and Edward Harper, Jr., `Buckle Up or Slow Down? New Estimates of Offsetting Behavior and their Implications for Automobile Safety Regulation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1993, pp. 270-296. 36 Andrew Clarke, Traffic Calming, Auto -Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management Techniques: Their Effects on Bicycling and Pedestrians, National Bicycling and Walking Study, #19, FHWA (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org), 1994. Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity .Impacts and even greater reductions in pedestrian injuries.37 One recent before -and -after study found that traffic calming reduced collision frequency by 40%, vehicle insurance claims by 38%, and fatalities from one to zero.38 This provided a very favorable six-month payback on project expenses from insurance claim savings alone. Similarly, a study of 119 residential traffic circles installed in the city of Seattle between 1991 and 1994 found that reported accidents in those areas declined from 187 before installation to 11 after installation, and injuries declined from 153 to one.39 Portland, Oregon found similar safety benefits .40 A review of 600 Danish traffic calming projects found an average 43% reduction in traffic crash casualties.41 Similar reductions in accidents are reported in other studies, as indicated in Figure 2. Figure 2 Reported Traffic Calming Accident Reductions42 v 100% c o 80% 60% 2 U 40% c CL 0 20% a � a 0% Fifteen International Studies This figure illustrates changes in vehicle accident rates from traffic calming programs reported in fifteen international studies, indicating that most show significant reductions. Quantifying Safety Benefits Studies described above indicate that traffic calming which significantly reduces traffic speeds typically reduces crashes by 40%, although impacts vary depending on other factors. Historical accident data can be used to determine the frequency of crashes on the roads to be calmed, keeping in mind that many crashes (particularly those involving pedestrians and cyclists) are not reported to police .4' An alternative approach is to use national crash rate data for urban streets in Table 4. 37 Steve Proctor, "Accident Reduction Through Area -Wide Traffic Schemes," Traffic Engineering & Control, Vol. 32, No. 12, Dec. 1991, pp. 566-572. 38 Sany R. Zein, Erica Geddes, Suzanne Hemsing and Mavis Johnson "Safety Benefits of Traffic Calming," Transportation Research Record 1578, 1997, pp. 3-10. " James Mundell, "Neighborhood Traffic Calming: Seattle's Traffic Circle Program," Road Management & Engineering Journal(www.usroads.com/journals/rmej/9801/rm980102 htm), January 1998. 40 See www.trans-ci-portiand.or.us/Traffic Mana ement/trafficcalmin re orts/accidents.htm. 41 T. Harvey, A Review of Current Traffic Calming Techniques, Institute of Transport Studies (heeds, www.its.leeds.ac.uk/primavera/p calmin .html#a41), 1991. 4Z Hamilton Associates, Safety Benefits of .Traffic Calming, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, (Vancouver), available from the Road Safety Group (www.roadsafe .com), 1996, Figure 3.2. 43 Helen James, "Under -reporting of Road Traffic Accidents," Traffic Eng+Con, Dec. 1991, pp. 574-583. Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Table 4 Crash Rate on Lower -Speed Urban Streets (Per 100 Million vehicle Miles)44 As an analytic tool, accident costs are often monetized (measured in monetary units).45 Although human life is not a commodity, many financial decisions involve marginal changes in the risk of injury and death. For example, consumers must decide whether to purchase optional safety equipment such as vehicle air bags, and society must decide whether to mandate such equipment. These tradeoffs are used to identify the value society places on risk reduction .4' Table 5 shows values used by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Some state and provincial transportation agencies have developed their own values. Table 6 illustrates typical monetized traffic calming road safety benefits. This analysis indicates that traffic calming can provide road safety benefits typically worth 6- 12¢ per vehicle mile if it reduces crash damages by 40%. Table 5 FHWA Accident Costs Per Injury (1994 dollars)47 Fatalities Persons Injured Serious Injuries Pedestrian Fatalities Pedestrian Injuries PDOs (estimate) Minor Arterials 1.08 191 16.8 0.28 6.3 1,910 Collectors 1.48 161 19.5 0.21 8.9 1,610 Local 1.17 311 32.9 0.37 1 18.6 1 3,110 As an analytic tool, accident costs are often monetized (measured in monetary units).45 Although human life is not a commodity, many financial decisions involve marginal changes in the risk of injury and death. For example, consumers must decide whether to purchase optional safety equipment such as vehicle air bags, and society must decide whether to mandate such equipment. These tradeoffs are used to identify the value society places on risk reduction .4' Table 5 shows values used by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Some state and provincial transportation agencies have developed their own values. Table 6 illustrates typical monetized traffic calming road safety benefits. This analysis indicates that traffic calming can provide road safety benefits typically worth 6- 12¢ per vehicle mile if it reduces crash damages by 40%. Table 5 FHWA Accident Costs Per Injury (1994 dollars)47 Table 6 Monetized Traffic Calming Road Safety Benefits 48 KABC Scale Cost at Abbreviated Injury Scale AIS Severity Descriptor Cost $ Severity Descriptor Cost ($) K Fatal 2,600,000 ATS 6 Fatal 2,600,000 A Incapacitating 180,000 AIS 5 Critical 1,980,000 B Evident 36,000 AIS 4 Severe 490,000 C Possible 19,000 AIS 3 Serious 150,000 PDO Property Damage Only 2,000 AIS 2 Moderate 40,000 1,910 4.8¢ /mile 17.6¢ /mil AIS 1 Minor 5,000 Table 6 Monetized Traffic Calming Road Safety Benefits 48 * Per 100 million vehicle miles. 44 Highway Statistics 1996, FHWA www.fliwa.dot/gov/ohim/1996),1997, 1997, Table F1-1). PDO crash rates are estimated based on 10 PDO crashes for each injury crash. 45 Lawrence Blincoe, Economic Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes 1994, NHTSA, USDOT (Washington DC; www.nhtsa.doc.gov/people/economic/ecomvcl994.htmi), 1995. 46 Ted Miller, The Costs of Highway Crashes, FHWA (Washington DC), FHWA-RD-055,1991, 47 Homberger, et al, Fundamental of Traffic Engineering, 14th Edition, Institute of Transportation Studies (Berkeley), UCB-ITS-CN-96-1, 1996, p. 9-13. 48 Crash rate data from Table 2. Assumes traffic calming reduces crashes, injuries and fatalities by 40%. 10 Fatality Cost at Injury Cost at PDO Cost at Total Traffic Rate* $3 million per Rate* $50,000 Per Rate* $2,500 Per Crash. Calming Fatality Injury PDO Costs Savings Minor Arterials 1.08 3.2¢ /mile 191 9.6¢ /mile 1,910 4.8¢ /mile 17.6¢ /mil 7.0¢ /mile Collectors 1.48 4.4¢ /mile 161 8.1 ¢ /mile 1,610 4.0¢ /mile 16.5¢ /mile 6.6¢ /mile Local 1.17 3.5¢ /mile 311 15.6/mile 3,110 7.8¢ /mile 126.80 /mile 10.7¢ /mile * Per 100 million vehicle miles. 44 Highway Statistics 1996, FHWA www.fliwa.dot/gov/ohim/1996),1997, 1997, Table F1-1). PDO crash rates are estimated based on 10 PDO crashes for each injury crash. 45 Lawrence Blincoe, Economic Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes 1994, NHTSA, USDOT (Washington DC; www.nhtsa.doc.gov/people/economic/ecomvcl994.htmi), 1995. 46 Ted Miller, The Costs of Highway Crashes, FHWA (Washington DC), FHWA-RD-055,1991, 47 Homberger, et al, Fundamental of Traffic Engineering, 14th Edition, Institute of Transportation Studies (Berkeley), UCB-ITS-CN-96-1, 1996, p. 9-13. 48 Crash rate data from Table 2. Assumes traffic calming reduces crashes, injuries and fatalities by 40%. 10 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Arterial Traffic Calming Success Story Bridgeport Way W. is a principal arterial that carries 25,000 vehicles a day. It has two travel lanes in each direction with a middle two -way -left -turn lane. Before the road improvements, there were over 160 accidents less than a mile long section of this road for a three year period. We improved this roadway by building curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, street lights, pedestrian crosswalks, landscaped median and planter strips. We eliminated two -way -left turn lane with a landscaped median and provided U-turn capabilities at intersections for passenger vehicles only. The results of our study show that the both accidents and the speed dropped on this roadway after we built the improvements. We are very pleased to see that we have 70% less accidents on this road now. This is a significant improvement. When we replaced the two -way -left -turn lane with a landscaped median, the local business owners were very concerned. They did not believe people would drive an extra block to make U-turns to access their businesses. Well, guess what! I just asked our Finance Department to get me a City wide sales tax information. We are collecting 5% more sales tax this year than previous year on a city wide basis. But what is interesting is that we are collecting 7% more sales tax from the businesses around the Bridgeport corridor. We all know that the economy is good now, nation wide. Our general sales tax increase is primarily due to the good economic conditions. We are not claiming that our road project is the primary reason for sales tax increase. But what we are claiming is that, our road project helped. We, engineers, must think more than cars when we build road projects. We must consider the other factors just as much important as the cars; community vision, pedestrians, economic vitality, bikers, joggers, etc. We all love to talk about vibrant communities. What better way to start building a vibrant community than building a well balanced road projects! Isn't it where it all starts from? Look around you, you can easily connect a poor road design and construction with the poverty, isolation, community deprivation, frustration, high crime rates, etc. We need to think differently. As someone stated oncec "we can not fix today's problems with the same thinking that the created them in the first place." This is a very difficult concept for us, engineers, to understand and translate into our road designs. Because, we are educated and trained to move cars faster on wider roads. I hope that your council will look at your road project from a broader perspective of what your community will look like in the future rather than what specific engineering manuals or guidelines to meet today. All design manuals and guidelines have enough flexibility for us to implement the Council's vision. Obviously, some of us are doing it, so should your engineers. Ben Yazici Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works City of University Place, Washington 11 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts 2. Improved Conditions for Non -Motorized Modes Traffic calming tends to improve pedestrian and cycling conditions a9 Reduced vehicle traffic speeds and volumes tend to make walking50 and cycling51 safer, more comfortable and more convenient. Many people place a high value on street design features that improve safety and mobility for non -motorized transportation.52 A 1995 Harris poll found that 70% of U.S. adults want better local facilities for non -motorized transportation.53 A market survey found that 80% of Canadians would like to walk more, and 66% would like to cycle more than they currently do.54 Many homebuyers want residences in neighborhoods with narrow streets that limit vehicle traffic.55 Before Walt Disney Corporation built Celebration, its new town in Florida, they conducted an extensive market study of what homebuyers wanted. Focus groups revealed that one out of every two Americans wanted to live in a village -style or traditional neighborhood. However, since less than one percent of current new development is styled on older, traditional patterns, a major demand for neighborhoods that retain old town living styles goes unfilled .56 Better walking and cycling conditions are particularly important for people with disabilities, the elderly, and children, who are more dependent on non -motorized travel, and often have difficulty crossing busy traffic. As the population ages, a greater portion of urban residents are likely to walk and cycle for transportation and recreation. Quantifying This Benefit The number of trips that benefit from traffic calming can be estimated based on local travel data, as described earlier. These benefits can be monetized by asking residents how much they value improved walking and cycling conditions. For example, a survey might investigate how much residents would willingly pay for a significant improvement in pedestrian and walking conditions on their street or in their neighborhood. Some transport agencies place a dollar value on the delay and reduced mobility by walking and cycling resulting from heavy vehicle traffics' 49 Rhys Roth, Getting People Walking: Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian Travel, WSDOT (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.h ), 1994. 5' Ellen Vanderslice, Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, Pedestrian Transportation Program, City of Portland (503-823-7004; www.trans.ci. ortland.or.us), 1998. 51 David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex Sorton, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway Administration (www.hsre.unc.edu/research/pedbike/bci), 1998. sz Daniel Carlson, Lisa. Wormser and Cy Ulberg, At Road's End: Transportation and Land Use Choices for Communities, Island Press (Washington DC; www.islandpress.org), 1995. 53 Cited in Trails for Transportation, National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse Technical Assistance Series, Number 3 (www.bikeped.org), 1995. " Environics, National Survey on Active Transportation, Go for Green, www. ofor reen.ca), 1998. 55 "Neighborhoods Reborn," Consumer Reports, May 1996, pp. 24-30. 56 Dan Burden, Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities, Local Government Commission (Sacramento; www.lgc.org/cic), 1999. 57 Donald Rintoul, Social Cost of Transverse Barrier Effects, Planning Services Branch, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Victoria; www.th.gov.bc.ca/bchi hg ways), October 1995. 12 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts 3. Increased Non -Motorized Travel And Reduced Automobile Travel As described earlier, traffic calming can increase walking, bicycling and public transit use, and reduce automobile travel. This provides both internal benefits (to people who increase their non -motorized travel and reduce their driving) and external benefits (to others), as summarized in Table 7. These benefits are not limited to the streets being calmed. If traffic calming reduces a bottleneck on a cycling route, or improves access to public transit it can result in mode shifts that reduce vehicle traffic on other roads. Table 7 Benefits of Increased Non -Motorized Travel" User Internal Benefits External Benefits Reduced congestion Reduced road and parking facility expenses Financial savings Reduced accidents Health benefits Reduced pollution Increased mobility for non -drivers Resource conservation Enjoyment Increased travel choices reduced automobile dependency) Increased walking and bicycling can improve health through aerobic exercise.59 A sedentary lifestyle has a cardiovascular risk equal to smoking 20 cigarettes a day.60 This exercise benefits children's physical and intellectual development, and parents who are otherwise required to chauffeur children .61 Traffic calming can help reduce automobile dependency (high levels of automobile use, limited travel choice for non -drivers, and automobile oriented land use patterns) and its associated costs.62 Although walking and bicycling are often slower than driving, a voluntary shift to non - motorized travel can be assumed to provide net user benefits. In other words, if traffic calming allows people to shift from driving to walking or bicycling, any increase in time does not represent a net cost to users since they would not otherwise make that choice. Many people enjoy time spent walking and cycling, or value it as a form of exercise. Quantifying These Benefits Studies described earlier in this report indicate that traffic calming can increase non - motorized travel and reduce automobile travel, although actual impacts will vary depending on many factors. A single traffic calming project is unlikely to have much effect on total travel, but a comprehensive traffic calming programs that supports other transportation demand management efforts may have very significant effects. se Todd Litman, Guide to Calculating TDM Benefits, VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 1997. s5 Edmund Burke, Benefits of Bicycling and Walking to Health, National Bicycling and Walking Study #14, USDOT, FHWA (Washington DC; www.bike ed.or ), 1992; Physical Activity Task Force, More People, More Active, More Often, UK Department of Health (London), 1995. 61 Ian Roberts, et al., Pedalling Health—Health Benefits of a Modal Transport Shift, Bicycle Institute. of South Australia (www.science.adelaide.edu.au/slate/demos/cyhealth.pdf), 1996. 61 Mayer Hillman, ed., Children, Transport and the Quality of Life, Policy Studies Inst. (London), 1993. 62 Peter Newman and Jeffery Kenworthy, Cities and Automobile Dependency, Gower (Aldershot), 1989; Todd Litman, Automobile Dependency as a Cost, VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 1996. 13 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Vehicle travel reductions can be estimated using values of the elasticity of vehicle travel with respect to travel time, which ranges from about -0.2 in the short term up to -1.0 over the long term.63 Thus, if a comprehensive traffic calming program reduces average travel speeds by 10%, it can be estimated that total vehicle travel would decline 2% in the short term and up to 10% over the long term. Table 8 summarizes estimates of some benefits of a mode shift from driving to non - motorized travel. These benefits tend to be greatest in urban areas where traffic calming projects are most common. A reasonable estimate is that these benefits average about $2.00 per urban trip shifted from driving to non -motorized travel. Table 8 Savings Per Trip of Shift From Driving To Non -Motorized Travel 64 Congestion Road Costs Urban Peak $0.40 0.10 Urban Off -Peak $0.04 0.05 Rural $0.00 0.05 Parking 1..50 0.25 0.05 User Costs 0.85 0.55 0.55 Air Pollution 0.25 0.20 0.05 Noise 0.10 0.05 0.02 Road Safety 0.15 0.12 0.10 Additional Environmental & Social 0.23 0.23 0.23 Totals $3.58 $1.49 $1.05 4. Noise, Air Pollution, and Aesthetics Traffic calming generally reduces traffic noise.65 Speed reductions from 50 to 30 kph typically reduce noise levels by 4-5 decibel S,66 or more in some circumstances." Strategies that reduce traffic speeds to about 30 kilometers per hour and smooth traffic flow reduce air pollution, while those that increase stops may increase emissions. Actual impacts vary depending on specific conditions. Measures that cause more frequent acceleration, and some textured road surfaces, can increase noise and air emissions. One study found that installing six speed humps on a previously 40 km/hr road increased NOx emissions 10 times, CO emissions 3 times, and fuel consumption from 7.9 to 10 liters per 100 km.68 Strategies resulting in constant, moderate speeds provide the greatest benefits. 63 Hang Cohen, "Review of Empirical Studies of Induced Traffic," Curbing Gridlock, Appendix B, National Academy Press (Washington DC; www.nas.edu/trb), 1994, pp. 295-309. 64 Todd Litman, Quantifying Bicycling Benefits for Achieving TDM Benefits, VTPI (w ), 1998. 65 Traffic Calming: Trak and Vehicle Noise, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (UK; www.roads.detr.jzov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/traffic/06 96/iteml .htm), 1996. 66 Tim Pharoah and John Russell, Traffic Calming: Policy and Evaluations in Three European Countries, South Bank Polytechnic (London), February 1989. 67 Take Back Your Streets, Conservation Law Foundation (Boston; www,clfore), May 1995,.p. 27. 68 Quoted in Daily Express (London), October 1995. 14 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Table 9 summarizes air emission and fuel consumption impacts from typical traffic calming speed reductions. Table 9 Effects of 50 kph to 30 kph Speed Reduction 69 Reduced traffic speeds reduces vehicle emissions and fuel consumption in most cases. Traffic calming cari help create more attractive urban environments.70 Commercial areas along higher -speed streets tend to be unattractive because businesses must "shout" at passing motorists with large signs, because so much land is used for parking, and because settlement patterns have no clear form." Traffic calming projects sometimes reduce the amount of land devoted to streets and parking.7' This can increase greenspace and reduce impervious surfaces, resulting in environmental and financial benefits (particularly reduced stormwater costs).73 Quantifying These Benefits Traffic noise and air emission models are available,74 but these are mostly designed for highway conditions and are poorly calibrated for lower -speed travel. A better approach would be to field test the effects of traffic calming. A number of monetized estimates of automobile environmental costs are available, although many use nation-wide values that tend to underestimate costs under higher -density urban conditions.75 69 Michael Replogle, "Minority Statement," Expanding Metropolitan Highways, Transportation Research Board/National Academy Press (Washington DC; www.nas.edu/trb), 1995, p. 369. 70 Suzanne Crowhurst Lennard and Henry Lennard, Livable Cities Observed, Gondolier (Carmel) 1995, 71 William Shore, "Recentralization; The Single Answer to More Than a Dozen United States Problems. and A Major Answer to Poverty," American Planning Assoc. Journ., Vol. 61, No. 4, Summer 1995, 496- 503. 72 Jim West and Allen Lowe, "Integration of Transportation and Land Use Planning through Residential Street Design," ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 47-51. 73 Chester Arnold and James Gibbons, "Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key Environmental Indicator," Am. Planning Association Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2, Spring 1996, pp. 243-258; NEMO project www.Iib.uconn.edu/CANR/ces/nemo/nn s.html). 74 Such as the EPA MOBILE model for air pollution, and the FHWA STAMINA model for noise. 75 Dr. Peter Bein, Monetization of Environmental Impacts of Roads, Planning Services Branch, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Victoria, www.th. og vbc.ca/bchighways), 1997; Todd Litman, Transportation Cost Analysis; Techniques, Estimates and Implications, VTPI (www.vtpi.or), 1998. 15 "Easy" Driver "Aggressive" Driver Carbon monoxide -13% -17% VOCs -22% -10% NOx -48% -32% Fuel use 1 -7% +7% Reduced traffic speeds reduces vehicle emissions and fuel consumption in most cases. Traffic calming cari help create more attractive urban environments.70 Commercial areas along higher -speed streets tend to be unattractive because businesses must "shout" at passing motorists with large signs, because so much land is used for parking, and because settlement patterns have no clear form." Traffic calming projects sometimes reduce the amount of land devoted to streets and parking.7' This can increase greenspace and reduce impervious surfaces, resulting in environmental and financial benefits (particularly reduced stormwater costs).73 Quantifying These Benefits Traffic noise and air emission models are available,74 but these are mostly designed for highway conditions and are poorly calibrated for lower -speed travel. A better approach would be to field test the effects of traffic calming. A number of monetized estimates of automobile environmental costs are available, although many use nation-wide values that tend to underestimate costs under higher -density urban conditions.75 69 Michael Replogle, "Minority Statement," Expanding Metropolitan Highways, Transportation Research Board/National Academy Press (Washington DC; www.nas.edu/trb), 1995, p. 369. 70 Suzanne Crowhurst Lennard and Henry Lennard, Livable Cities Observed, Gondolier (Carmel) 1995, 71 William Shore, "Recentralization; The Single Answer to More Than a Dozen United States Problems. and A Major Answer to Poverty," American Planning Assoc. Journ., Vol. 61, No. 4, Summer 1995, 496- 503. 72 Jim West and Allen Lowe, "Integration of Transportation and Land Use Planning through Residential Street Design," ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 47-51. 73 Chester Arnold and James Gibbons, "Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key Environmental Indicator," Am. Planning Association Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2, Spring 1996, pp. 243-258; NEMO project www.Iib.uconn.edu/CANR/ces/nemo/nn s.html). 74 Such as the EPA MOBILE model for air pollution, and the FHWA STAMINA model for noise. 75 Dr. Peter Bein, Monetization of Environmental Impacts of Roads, Planning Services Branch, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Victoria, www.th. og vbc.ca/bchighways), 1997; Todd Litman, Transportation Cost Analysis; Techniques, Estimates and Implications, VTPI (www.vtpi.or), 1998. 15 Trac Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts 5. Increased Neighborhood Interaction and Crime Prevention Public streets are an important component of the "public realm" where people can meet in a neutral space. Street environment conditions affects how people interact in a community. Traffic calming helps make public streets lively and friendly, encourages community interaction, and attracts customers to commercial areas.76 As traffic increased on a street, residents tended to have fewer friends and acquaintances among their neighbors, and the area they consider "home territory" declined." Traffic calming is also used to discourage extreme anti -social behavior.'$ Neighborhoods that are more difficult to drive through (narrow streets, few straight thoroughfares) have significantly less crime than those that are more permeable. After closing off residential streets to through traffic, researchers found that "Without the heavy traffic of the past, internal streets could be `taken back' and used for play by children and other forms of interaction among neighbors."79 In a Dayton, Ohio case study, traffic calming reduced neighborhood crime by 25-50% and encouraged residents to get to know their neighbors better and become more involved in community activities.80 A survey of residents found that many knew their neighbors better and were more involved in community activities after these changes. It is difficult to measure these benefits, although there are indications that they are highly valued.81 One indication is the number of people who spend their vacations strolling the pedestrian -friendly streets of pre -automobile cities, or at pedestrian -oriented resorts such as Disneyland. Similarly, homes in "neotraditional" neighborhoods command higher prices in part because buyers expect more neighborhood interaction .12 Quantifying These Benefits Although these benefits appear to be highly valued by many residents, they are difficult to quantify. 76 Suzanne Crowhurst Lennard and Henry Lennard, Livable Cities Observed, Gondolier (Carmel) 1995. 77 Donald Appleyard, Livable Streets, University of California Press (Berkeley), 1981. 76 Mark Jones and Kenneth Lowrey, "Street Barriers in American Cities," Urban Geography, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1995, pp. 112-122. 79 Henry Cisneros, Defensible Space, HUD (Wash. DC; www.huduser.or ), 1995. 80 Stephen Burrington & Bennet Heart, City Routes, City Rights, Conservation Law Foundation (Boston; 3nnEx1f org), 1998. 81 James Howard Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere, Simon & Schuster (New York), 1993; Philip Langdon, A Better Place to Live, HarperPerennial (New York), 1994. 82 ,Neighborhoods Reborn," Consumer Reports, May 1996, pp. 24-30. 10 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts 6. Increased Property Values Most homebuyers prefer homes on streets with lower traffic volumes and speeds. For this reason homes on cul de sac streets command a price premium and new developments are being built with streets designed to control traffic. 13 Reduced traffic speeds and pedestrian amenities can also make small commercial districts more attractive and accessible to nearby residents. One study found that traffic restraints that reduced traffic volumes on residential streets by several hundred vehicles per day increased house values by an average of 18%.84 Other studies find similar results.85. These higher values partly reflect the safety and environmental benefits experienced by residents, so it is important to avoid double -counting. Safety and environmental benefits to non-residents (non-residents walking or cycling along a street, or playing in a nearby park) are not reflected in residential home prices. Quantifying This Benefit Market surveys and consultation with real estate experts can help quantify this benefit in particular locations. A rough estimate is that each reduction of 100 vehicles per day below 2,000 provides a 1% increase in adjacent residential property values. 86 Traffic speed reductions also increase adjacent residential property values by reducing noise. A 5-10 mph reduction can increase adjacent residential property values by about 2%.S7 Similar benefits may occur in commercial areas where traffic calming enhances the street environment. 7. Reduced Suburban Sprawl Traffic calming can give residents of existing urban neighborhoods the lower -traffic amenity often associated with suburban cul-de-sac locations. By creating a more pleasant urban environment and encouraging the use of non -automotive travel modes, traffic calming can help reduce "suburban sprawl." Sprawl imposes a number of economic, social and environmental costs on society. 88 Quantifying This Benefit Although reduced sprawl may provide significant benefits in some regions, these benefits are difficult to quantify. 83 Dan Burden, Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities, Local Government Commission (Sacramento; www.l c.or cic), 1999. 14 Gordon Bagby, "Effects of Traffic Flow on Residential Property Values," Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 46, No. 1, January 1980, pp. 88-94. 85 William Hughes and C.F. Sirmans, "Traffic Externalities and Single -Family House Prices," Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1992, pp. 487-500. " Based on Bagby, 1980. More research is needed to better quantify these values. 87 M. Modra, Cost -Benefit Analysis of the Application of Traffic Noise Insulation Measures to Existing Houses, EPA (Melbourne), 1984. 88 Robert Burchell, et al., The Costs of Sprawl — Revisited, TORP Report 39, Transportation Research Board (www.nas.edu/trb), 1998. 17 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Costs 1. Project Expenses Project expenses include both capital expenses of implementing traffic calming andany incremental maintenance costs. Because there are many different traffic calming techniques, devices and conditions, these costs vary widely. Costs also vary depending on whether traffic calming projects are implemented alone or in conjunction with other road construction projects. Traffic calming projects often involve a variety of objectives, such as community beautification, so a portion of project costs may be charged to other budgets. Table 10 provides generic cost estimates for typical traffic calming measures. A variety of sources are used to fund traffic calming projects, including federal and state grants, local general funds, development impact fees, and property assessments.89 Table 10 Typical Costs of Traffic Calming Measures90 Measure Typical Costs Asphalt walkway $30-40 PeTlinear foot for 5 -foot wide walkway. Curb rams $1,500 per ramp. Bike lanes $10,000-50,000 per mile to modify existing roadway no new construction). Chokers $7,000 for landscaped choker on asphalt street, $13,000 on concrete street. Curb bulbs $10,000-20,000 per bulb. Traffic circles $4,000 for landscaped circle on asphalt street, $6,000 on concrete street. Chicanes $8,000 for landscaped chicanes on asphalt streets, $14,000 on concrete streets. Street closures $6,500 for landscaped partial closure, $30,000-100,000 for full closure. Marked crosswalk $100-300 for painted crosswalks, $3,000 for patterned concrete. Pedestrian refu a island $6,000-9,000, de2ending on materials and conditions. Center medians $15,000-20,000 per 100 feet. Traffic signals $15,000-60,000 for a new signal. Raised intersection $70,000+ er intersection Traffic signs $75-100 per sign. Speed hums $2,000per hum 2. Liability Claims Current experience indicates that traffic calming projects do not cause significant liability claims. A 1997 survey found that out of more than 1,500 total lawsuits brought against traffic engineers in 68 jurisdictions, only 6 involved traffic calming devices, and only two were successful.91 Vehicle damage during construction, and inadequately signed speed humps appear to be the most common cause of claims. Monetary awards tend to be relatively small. As designers and motorists become more familiar with traffic calming, and as specific strategies become widely accepted practices, the risk of claims is likely to decline. Liability can be minimized by using standard strategies and designs published by organizations such as ITE or TAC, and by using appropriate signage to warn drivers. 89 Asha Weinstein and Elizabeth Deakin, "How Local Jurisdictions Finance Traffic Calming Projects," Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3, Summer 1999, pp. 75-87. 9° Making Streets that Work, City of Seattle (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm), 1996. 91 Ransford S. McCourt, Survey of Safety Programs,.ITE Traffic Engineering Council (3=-westemite.com/technical/simalsurvey/ntm), 1997. 18 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts 3. Vehicle Delay Traffic calming reduces average motor vehicle speeds, and sometimes increases the distances required to drive to destinations. This increases automobile users' travel time. On the other hand, traffic calming that reduces excess speeds and smoothes traffic flow (such as calming an arterial, or replacing a conventional intersection with a roundabout 12) can increase total roadway capacity and reduce congestion delays, since roadway capacity is maximized at 30-40 mph, and less on typical streets with stoplight intersections.93 Quanting This Cost Conventional assessment techniques can be used to value incremental travel time costs.94 For example, a traffic calming project may reduce average traffic speeds from 30 to 20 mph, which adds 30 seconds to an average trip, assuming 0.5 mile per trip is traffic calmed. Personal travel time is usually valued at 50% of average wage rates. A 30 second travel time increase is therefore considered worth 50, at $12 per hour average wages. This represents a maximum cost. Increased travel time that results when vehicle speeds are reduced to the posted speed limit are not generally considered a "cost." If the posted speed limit on the route is 25 mph, only half the 30 second increase in travel time would be considered a cost, the rest is simply compliance with traffic law. Motorists respond in various ways to reduced traffic speeds. Some trips are rerouted, consolidated or eliminated entirely, particularly over the long term as transport and land use patterns achieve a new equilibrium.95 As a result, delay costs decline over time as area motorists adjust their travel and land use patterns to account for changes in trip speeds. Eventually (over 5-10 years), a new land use equilibrium will develop based on lower traffic speeds, so no time is lost. This indicates that net travel time costs are 80% in the short-term, and decline to 0% over the long-term. For example, if 1,000 vehicles per day currently use a roadway, and a traffic calming project increases average travel time by 1 minute per mile, an estimate of total travel delay ignoring travel elasticities is: 1,000 x 1 -minute = 16.6 hours per day. A more accurate estimate that incorporates elasticity values is: 1,000 x 1 -minute x (1 + E) where E is an elasticity value that changes from --0.2 in the short -terra, to -1.0 over the long term. This represents traffic that changes routes, destinations or modes to avoid delay. Thus, the actual total delay starts at 13:28 and declines over time. A new land use equilibrium eventually develops based on traffic calmed travel speeds, so no time is lost. 92 George Jacquesmart, Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States, NCHRP Synthesis 264 (TRB, www.nas.edu/trb), 1998; Modern Roundabout website (www.roundabouts.com). 93 W. Homburger, et al., Fundamentals of Traffrc Engineering, 14`h Edition, Institute of Transportation Studies (Berkeley), 1996, Chapter 4. 94 William Waters, The Value of Time Savings for The Economic Evaluation of Highway Investments in British Columbia, BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways www.th. ov.bc.ca/bchi hwa s), 1992. 95 Cairns, Hass-Klau and Goodwin, Traffic Impacts of Highway Capacity Reductions: Assessment of the Evidence, London Transport Planning (London; www.ucl.ac.uk/transl2ort-studies/scl.httn), 1998. 19 Trak Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts 4. Traffic Spillover Onto Other Roads Traffic calming on one road may cause some vehicle trips to shift to other roads. Net impacts depend on whether the roads experiencing additional traffic are equally sensitive as the road with reduced traffic. Shifting traffic from low-volume residential streets to high-volume arterial roads reduces most external impacts, providing net benefits, although it may increase arterial traffic congestion. Spillover traffic may be predicted using traffic models. However, most models tend to overestimate spillover impacts because they use fixed trip tables (they assume that the same number of trips will occur between zones regardless of travel conditions). Fixed trip table traffic models tend to overestimate traffic spillover costs. Quantifying This Cost Spillover costs can be calculated by determining the number of vehicle trips shifted to other streets and calculating the increased cost these trips impose. 5. Problems for Emergency and Service Vehicles Some traffic calming techniques can cause delay and other problems for fire trucks and heavy service vehicles (buses, garbage trucks and snowplows). One study found that speed humps and traffic circles can delay fire trucks up to 10.7 seconds per device, depending on vehicle type and conditions.96 In one city, traffic calming increased average emergency vehicle response time by two seconds, from 3:23 to 3:25 minutes .97 This increase is much smaller than differences in response times between residential areas.98 Incremental risk to residents from fire truck delays are usually much smaller than increased road safety from traffic calming accident reductions. These problems can be minimized if they are considered in project planning. Some street closures include short-cuts for emergency and service vehicles. Communities may purchase smaller fire and garbage trucks for use in traffic calmed areas, or develop more dispersed fire stations. Here are other ways to minimize these problems: 1. Establish extra large no -parking zones adjacent to fire hydrants to help fire trucks maneuver. 2. Limit the use of skinny streets to low- and medium -density residential neighborhoods. 3. Limit the use of skinny streets to streets which are part of an interconnected network of streets (i.e., connected on both sides to other public streets, no cul-de-sacs). 4. Avoid skinny streets on primary emergency vehicle routes. 5. Prohibiting parking within 50' of an intersection (to allow fire trucks to make the turn). 96 Crysttal Atkins and Michael Coleman, "Influence of Traffic Calming on Emergency Response Times," ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 42-47; www.trans.ei.portland.or.us/Trafflc Mana ement/trafficcalmin . 97 it Phase of Traffic Calming Project in Sacramento Yields Positive Effects," Urban Transportation Monitor, Vol. 13, No. 6, April 2, 1999, p, 4. " A. Ann Sorensen and J. Dixon Esseks, Living on the Edge; The Costs and Risks of Scatter Development, American Farmland Trust (Washington DC; http;//farm.fiic.niu.edu/cae/tatter/index.htm), March 1998. Ili Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts 6. Driver Frustration Some drivers may be frustrated if confused by unfamiliar traffic calming devices or because they want to go faster than traffic calming allows. This is usually a temporary problem as drivers become familiar with traffic calming and accustomed to the new road conditions. On the other hand, some drivers may experience reduced stress from lower traffic speeds. Quantifying This Cost This is generally a minor and temporary cost. 6. Problems For Bicyclists And Visually Impaired Pedestrians Some traffic calming measures can create problems for bicyclists, particularly if they reduce lane widths, create confusion at intersections, or include bumpy or slippery surfaces.99 These impacts depend on specific conditions. For example, road narrowing may be a problem where traffic speeds are relatively fast, but may not be a problem if vehicle traffic slows so bicyclists can ride comfortably in the traffic flow. Some traffic calming techniques can cause problems for visually impaired pedestrians, particularly if they eliminate curbs and edges that blind pedestrians use as references, or if they create unusual sidewalk or traffic configurations. 100 Specific concerns include: • Where crosswalks are raised to curb level and there is no detectable warning (such as textured pavement), blind pedestrians may have no way to know when they enter the street, and accidentally walk into traffic.10' Blind pedestrians may be confused when they first encounter street crossings with projected intersections (neckdowns). Roundabout intersections may be more difficult for blind pedestrians to because they do not have straight traffic or regular breaks in traffic flow. These problems are likely to decline as planners incorporate these concerns into traffic calming designs, and as cyclists and visually impaired pedestrians become more familiar with various traffic calming devices. 99 Bicyclists: Caught in the Middle, PTT, (http://yti.nw.dc.us/task_forces/transportation/docs/trafcalm) 100 B.L. Bentzen and J.M. Barlow, "Impact of Curb Ramps on the Safety of Persons Who Are Blind," Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 89, 1995, pp. 319-328. 101 J.S. Hauger, et al., "Detectable Warning Surfaces at Curb Ramps," Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 90, 1.996, pp. 512-525. 21 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Equity Impacts Equity is concerned with the fair distribution of costs and benefits. 102 There are two major categories of equity. Horizontal equity refers to the distribution of impacts among people or groups considered to be equal in wealth and ability. Vertical equity refers to the distribution of impacts between people or groups that differ in wealth and ability, with the assumption that people who are disadvantaged may require greater public resources. Horizontal Equity Motor vehicles, by their nature, impose external costs on non -motorized travel. Pedestrians and cyclists are far more likely to be killed or injured in a traffic accident than are vehicle occupants. Motor vehicles also impose pollution externalities. Such impacts are inequitable, unless they are fully compensated. It could therefore be considered equitable to charge motorists for the costs of implementing traffic calming projects to reduce such impacts. Public expenditures are sometimes evaluated in terms of whether different groups receive fair value for their tax payments. Many people assume vehicle user fees pay for public roads, so motor vehicles should have first priority in roadway use. In fact, vehicle user taxes cover only a small portion of local road costs, which are mostly funded by local taxes .10' As a result, residents, pedestrians and cyclists have a claim equal or greater than that of motorists to have roads that meet their needs, even based on the narrow criteria of who funds the facilities. If motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and residents are all considered to have equal rights to safety, mobility, comfort and property, traffic calming can increase horizontal equity by better balancing different uses of a street. Traffic calming can reduce the uncompensated accident risks and the delays motor vehicles impose on pedestrians and cyclists, give residents more control over their neighborhood environments, and increases property values degraded by higher traffic speeds and volumes. Vertical equity In most cases, traffic calming increases vertical equity. Traffic calming often increases vertical equity. People who are economically, physically and socially disadvantaged tend to drive less than average, walk and bicycle more than average, and live in urban neighborhoods that are most impacted by through traffic. 102 Todd Litman, Evaluating Transportation Equity, VTPI (www.vtpi_org), 1999. 103 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, USDOT (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/final); Todd Litman, Whose Roads?, VTPI (www.vtpi_org), 1998. 22 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Public Support The public must be involved in planning traffic calming projects in order to develop broad support. 104 Community acceptance can be significantly influenced by details such as aesthetics, neighborhood security, and impacts on parking. The first few traffic calming projects implemented in a community tend to be the most controversial. Public support generally increases as residents become more familiar with traffic calming and its impacts. For example, the cities of Seattle and Portland, which have implemented many traffic calming projects, now receive hundreds of annual requests for more projects, far more than can be funded each year. Some public works departments have a specific process for selecting traffic calming projects, which may involve developing a neighborhood traffic management plan in consultation with area residents, or simply a petition signed by a certain portion of residents on a street to be calmed. The City of Seattle guarantees that a traffic calming device can later be removed if residents request. Although this has only occurred once out of more than 800 projects, it gives residents more confidence knowing that they can change their mind if they don't consider the project beneficial overall. Evaluating Traffic Calming Projects A project evaluation should describe each impact, quantify and monetize (measured in dollar units) impacts where possible, and indicate how impacts are distributed. Although monetizing impacts can be helpful, it is important to avoid focusing on impacts just because they are easy to measure. If monetary units are used for benefit/cost analysis, it is often useful to perform sensitivity analysis (using high and low range estimates) to test whether conclusions are reliable under different assumptions. To avoid double counting, the relationships between these impacts should be carefully considered. If benefits and costs are monetized and totaled for benefit/cost analysis, it may be necessary to exclude some impacts that are incorporated in other categories. In particular, increased property values along traffic calmed streets may reflect increased road safety and enhanced local environmental quality, rather than being a benefit in itself. If safety, environmental and social impacts are correctly monetized it may be appropriate to exclude increased property values as a monetized benefit from the benefit total. Equity analysis requires identifying how benefits and costs are distributed. A policy decision may be made to give greater weight to impacts on certain groups. For example, impacts on residents may be given greater weight than impacts on non-residents, or impacts on disadvantaged groups (disabled, elderly, low income) may be given greater weight for the sake of vertical equity. "' Canadian Guide To Traffic Calming, Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; www.tac- atc.ca/ rorams/calmin /calmin .htm), 1999. 23 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Traffic Calming Evaluation Example This example illustrates the evaluation of a major traffic calming program in an urban neighborhood with 5, 000 residents living in 2, 000 households. Road Safety Benefits Historical data indicates that there are an average of 50 PDQ crashes, 10 injury crashes, and 0.02 fatal crashes (i.e., one fatality every 50 years) on the roads to be traffic calmed. The state transportation agency values traffic safety improvements at $3,000,000 per fatality, $50,000 per injury accident, and $2,500 per PDQ avoided. The traffic calming program is predicted to reduce crashes by 40%. The results, summarized in Table 11, indicate safety benefits are valued at $274,000 per year. Table 11 Crash Cost Savings From Traffic Calming Description Current Annual Crashes 40% Annual Crash Reduction Cost Per Crash Cost Savings Fatal 0.02 0.008 $3,000,000 $24,000 Injury 10 4 $50,000 $200,000 Property Damage Only.50 20 $2,500 $50,000 Total I i 1 $274,000 Increased Pedestrian and Cyclist Mobility Area households currently generate an average of 1.9 non -motorized trips per day. Traffic calming is predicted to increase this by 10% or more, to 2. l+ trips per day. At least 1.5 million annual non -motorized trips (2.1 trips per day x 2,000 households x 365 days) representing 17% of household trips could benefit. Reduced Automobile Impacts In this example, half of the additional walking and bicycling trips are assumed to replace an automobile trip, a reduction of 0.1+ motor vehicle trips per household per day. This represents at least 73,000 fewer automobile trips. Reduced vehicle use is estimated to provide net benefits totaling about $146,000 per year, assuming $2.00 savings per trip. Local Environmental Benefits Traffic noise is predicted to decline on 15 residential streets with 750 residences and 10 businesses. Air pollution impacts are considered uncertain and too small to measure. Increased Neighborhood Interaction and Crime Prevention A survey of residents indicates that they value opportunities to increase neighborhood interaction, particularly because it may reduce crime. This impact is not quantified. 24 Trak Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Property Values Five residential streets are predicted to have an average of 200 fewer vehicles per day, resulting in a 2% increase in property values. Another ten streets will have average traffic speeds reduced by 5 mph, resulting in a 1% increase in property values. This benefit totals $1 million, with an annualized value of about $53,000, as indicated in Table 12. Table 12 Increased Property Values from Reduced Traffic Volumes and Sneed.% Reduced Suburban Sprawl This project is likely to help reduce suburban sprawl. Project Expenses. The project has capital costs of $800,000 and $5,000 annual increased maintenance costs. Liability Claims By using standard traffic calming strategies, liability claims are not expected to increase. Vehicle Delay. Traffic surveys indicate that the roads being calmed in this project carry 4,600,000 motor vehicle trips annually. Average speeds are predicted to decline from 25 mph (2:24 minutes per mile) to 20 mph (3:00 minutes per mile) for 0.5 miles, adding 18 seconds to an average trip. This increases travel time by 23,000 hours per year, a cost of $138,000 per year at $6 per vehicle hour, if motorists do not change routes or destinations. As described earlier, delays actually tend to decline over time as travel and land use patterns achieve a new equilibrium. The actual delay cost is estimated to start at $110,000 (80% of $138,000) when the project is implemented, and decline to zero over a ten-year period. Traffic Spillover On Other Streets In this example, spillover traffic onto other residential streets is expected to be minimal, since the program is comprehensive. Traffic increases on arterials are proportionally small (400-800 additional vehicles per day on roads carrying 20,000 vehicles per day). This may slightly increase arterial traffic congestion. 105 Assuming 50 homes per street. 106 Assuming $100,000 average value per home. 107 20 year with a 7% discount rate. 25 Number Total Total Property Increased Annualized Im acts of Streets Houses 105 Value 106 Property Value Value 107 200 Daily 1% increase per Vehicle Trips 100 vehicles Reduced reduced 5 250 $25 million $500,000 $26,600 1% increase per 5 mph Speed 5 mph Reduction reduction 10 500 $50 million $500,000 $26,600 Totals 15 750 $75 million $1,000,000 $53,200 Reduced Suburban Sprawl This project is likely to help reduce suburban sprawl. Project Expenses. The project has capital costs of $800,000 and $5,000 annual increased maintenance costs. Liability Claims By using standard traffic calming strategies, liability claims are not expected to increase. Vehicle Delay. Traffic surveys indicate that the roads being calmed in this project carry 4,600,000 motor vehicle trips annually. Average speeds are predicted to decline from 25 mph (2:24 minutes per mile) to 20 mph (3:00 minutes per mile) for 0.5 miles, adding 18 seconds to an average trip. This increases travel time by 23,000 hours per year, a cost of $138,000 per year at $6 per vehicle hour, if motorists do not change routes or destinations. As described earlier, delays actually tend to decline over time as travel and land use patterns achieve a new equilibrium. The actual delay cost is estimated to start at $110,000 (80% of $138,000) when the project is implemented, and decline to zero over a ten-year period. Traffic Spillover On Other Streets In this example, spillover traffic onto other residential streets is expected to be minimal, since the program is comprehensive. Traffic increases on arterials are proportionally small (400-800 additional vehicles per day on roads carrying 20,000 vehicles per day). This may slightly increase arterial traffic congestion. 105 Assuming 50 homes per street. 106 Assuming $100,000 average value per home. 107 20 year with a 7% discount rate. 25 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Problems For Emergency Vehicles, Service Vehicles And Snow Removal Traffic calming strategies selected for this project are designed to accommodate service vehicles. Average fire truck emergency response time is predicted to increase by 2 seconds in the traffic calmed area. This impact is considered too small to quantify. Increased Drivers' Effort And Frustration Some drivers who are unfamiliar with traffic calming devices are expected to be confused, and drivers who currently exceed the speed limit are expected to be frustrated by the traffic calming project. These are both considered short-term effects that should soon disappear. Problems for Bicyclists and Visually Impaired Pedestrians Traffic calming devices are designed to minimize problems for cyclists. For example, chokers used on busier streets incorporate bike lanes. Some bicyclists who are unfamiliar with traffic calming devices are expected to be confused in the short term. By using standard traffic calming designs that incorporate textured surfaces where crosswalks enter the street without a curb, problems for visually impaired pedestrians are avoided. Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Example Summary Table 13 summarizes costs and benefits associated with the traffic calming project in this example. Table 13 Traffic Calming Impacts Descri tion Distribution Quantified Values Bene tts Reduced traffic accident Road users (especially frequency and severity, pedestrians and cyclists), particularly for crashes involving and society, due to Increased road edestrians and c clists. reduced accident costs. $274,000 per year Increased comfort and rt a mobility for non- Increased comfort and mobility 1.5+ million annual motorized travel, for pedestrians and c clists. Pedestrians and cyclists. trips benefit. Increased non -motorized travel Consumers, who enjoy substitutes for automobile trips, more travel choices, and Reduced automobile reducing congestion, expenses society, due to various impacts. and 2ollution. cost savin s. $146,000 per ear. Residents, visitors, and Reduced noise at 760 Local environmental Reduced noise and air pollution, some businesses (such as residences and benefits. and im roved aesthetics. restaurants). businesses. Increased More hospitable streets neighborhood encourage street activities and Many residents interaction. community interaction. Residents. benefit. Reduced traffic speed and Increased property volumes increase residential Residents and property values. roe values. owners. $53,000 per year. Improved urban environment Reduced suburban encourages urban infill that Possible benefit to the sprawl, reduces sprawl. Individuals and ciety. so region. Costs Financial costs associated with Local governments or a implementing and maintaining local improvement $1,000,000, plus Project expenses. traffic calming facilities. district. $5,000 per year. Increased liability claims caused Liability claims by traffic calming. Munici al governments. No change Reduced traffic speeds. Motorists $110,000 the first either increase their travel time year, declining to Vehicle delay. or reduce travel distance. Motorists and businesses. zero after 10 years. Traffic spillover on Traffic calming on one street can Residents and travelers Considered minimal other streets, shift traffic to other streets. on other streets. in this case. Problems for Delay to fire trucks, and People needing emergency and service problems for buses, garbage emergency services, vehicles. trucks and snow 2lows, public agencies. Minimal in this case. Increased effort required for Increased drivers' driving on traffic calmed roads Considered a minor, effort and frustration. and the resulting frustration. Drivers. short-term impact. Problems for bicyclists Some traffic calming strategies and visually impaired cause problems to bicyclists or Bicyclists and visually Minimal impact due pedestrians. visuall im aired pedestrians. im aired pedestrians. to good design. 27 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts The figure below illustrates the monetized benefits and costs projected 15 years into the future. Benefits are illustrated by bars going up and costs are illustrated by bars going down. A 7% discount rate is used, resulting in declining magnitude of impacts over time. In this case, the net present value of the monetized impacts are estimated to total more than $3.5 million, indicating that the traffic calming project is a worthwhile investment. Figure 4 Illustration of Traffic Calming Benefit/Cost Analysis $500,000 $0 -$500,000 Years a -$1,000,000 ■ Road Safety ®Reduced Automobile Impacts ■ Increased Property Values ❑Vehicle Delay ■ Project Expenses This figure illustrates how benefit/cast analysis results can be presented. Of course, this analysis only incorporates monetized values. Decision makers must use their judgment to determine whether impacts that are not monetized may be significant enough to change the results. In this case, the costs that are not monetized (spillover onto other streets, driver frustration, fire truck delay and problems for cyclists and visually impaired pedestrians) are minimized through consideration in the design, and are considered minor compared with other impacts. On the other hand, some benefits that were not monetized (increased mobility and comfort for walking and cycling, increased neighborhood interaction, reduced sprawl, and increased equity) appear to be significant and so may increase the project's net benefits. As a result, the conclusion that the project is a worthwhile investment can be considered robust. 28 Trak Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Conclusions This paper describes a comprehensive framework for evaluating traffic calming benefits, costs and equity impacts. Benefits include increased road safety, increased comfort and mobility for non -motorized travel, reduced motor vehicle travel, reduced noise and air pollution, increased neighborhood interactions, increased property values, and a more attractive streetscape. Traffic calming can help create more livable communities, reduce automobile dependency, and discourage suburban sprawl. Since pedestrian mobility is essential for transit use, traffic calming supports transit. Traffic calming costs may include project expenses, motor vehicle delay, traffic spillover onto other streets, problems for emergency and service vehicles, driver frustration, and Problems for bicyclists and visually impaired pedestrians. Many objections to traffic calming relate to specific devices or measures rather than to traffic calming in general. These concerns may be addressed by considering a broader range of options, and careful selection of specific techniques that are most appropriate to a particular application. Traffic calming can increase horizontal equity by reducing motor vehicle external impacts, and by creating a more balanced transportation system that increases travel choices for disadvantaged people. It can be argued that local residents' interests should take precedence over the interests of non-resident motor vehicle users, since vehicle users impose unreciprocated impacts on residents, and because residents pay most of the costs of local streets through local taxes. Traffic calming can also increase vertical equity, since the people who benefit most tend to be economically, physically and socially disadvantaged relative to those who experience the most disbenefits from traffic calming (high mileage, suburban drivers). The impacts of each traffic calming project are unique. There are many different traffic calming devices and measures, and their impacts vary depending on the application. It is therefore not possible to provide "generic" estimates of traffic calming benefits and costs. Each project should be evaluated individually. There are various ways to evaluate benefits and costs, and provide this information to decision makers. Some traffic calming benefits and costs can be quantified using accepted economic techniques. Others, such as increased neighborhood interaction, may be significant but difficult to measure with available information. Impacts should be described qualitatively, and quantified as much as possible. It is important to avoid skewing analysis results by focusing too much on some impacts just because they are most easily quantified. Tables and graphs can be used to indicate the magnitude and distribution of impacts, and to compare total benefits and costs. It is important to avoid double counting. Sensitivity analysis can be used to test whether conclusions are reliable under a range of possible scenarios. 29 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Resources Bicycle Federation (www.bikefed.or) provides pedestrian and bicycle planning resources. Dan Burden, Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities, Local Government Commission (Sacramento; www.l c.or cic), 1999. Dan Burden and Peter Lagerway, Road Diets Free Millions for New Investment, Walkable Communities (wy walkable.org), 1999. Stephen Burrington & Veronika Thiebach, Take Back Your Streets; How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic, Conservation Law Foundation (Boston; www.clf or ), 1995. Congress for the New Urbanism Narrow Streets database (www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm). David Engwicht, Street Reclaiming; Creating Livable Streets and Vibrant Communities, New Society Publishers (www.newsociety.com), 1999. Reid Ewing, Transportation and Land Use Innovations; When You Can't Build Your Way Out of Congestion, Planners Press (Chicago; www.planning com), 1997. Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.or�) publishes several traffic calming and pedestrian planning documents. Local Government Commission (w_ww-lac.org/cic/Subinfo) provides a variety of useful material. Modern Roundabouts: www.roundabouts.com and www-uftrc.ce.afl.edu/wwwround/md-hnmi-. htm. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov) provides information on U.S. accidents and safety programs. National Transportation Week Pedestrian Website (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/ntw/bikeped.htm) provides links to a number of other pedestrian planning websites. Oregon Bike and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.onus/techserv/bikewalk/ob lan.htm) is an example of bicycle and pedestrian planning at its best. Partnership for a Walkable America (htt ://nsc.or walk/wkabout.htm) promotes the benefits of walking and supports efforts to make communities more pedestrian friendly. Slow Down You're Going Too Fast, FTI (h :// ti.nw.dc.us/task forces/trans ortation/ ubs.html). City of Portland (www.trans.ci. ortland.or.us/Traffic Mana ement/trafficca1min ) provides excellent information and materials on traffic calming and pedestrian planning. City of Seattle (www.ci-seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm) has planning and traffic calming resources. TAC, Canadian Guide To Traffic Calming, Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; www.tac-atc.ca/ ro rams/calmin calmin .htm), 1999. UK Dept. Environment, Transport and Regions (www.roads.detr.gov.uk) provides resources for creating a safer pedestrian environment, and descriptions of traffic management strategies. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration's pedestrian program (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk) provides pedestrian safety information and resources. Walkable Communities (rvww.walkable.org) helps create people -oriented environments. The WSDOT Pedestrian Website (www.wsdot.wa. ov/hlyd/Sub-defaults/Pedestrian-default.htm) provides extensive reference information and examples of outstanding programs. 30 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts Here are related reports available from VTPI: Land Use Impact Costs of Transportation Pavement Buster's Guide Quantifying Nonmotorized Transport Benefits for Achieving TDM Objectives Transportation Cost Analysis; Techniques, Estimates and Implications Whose Roads? Defining Bicyclist's and Pedestrian's Right to Use Public Roads Win -Win Transportation Management Strategies Feedback The Victoria Transport Policy Institute appreciates feedback, particularly suggestions for improving our products. After you have finished reading this report please let us know of any: • Typographical errors or confusing wording. • Concepts that were not well explained. • Analysis that is inappropriate or incorrect. • Additional information, ideas or references that could be added to improve the report. Thank you very much for your help. Victoria Transport Policy Institute Website: www.vtpi.org Email: info@vtpi.org 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3RT CANADA Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity' 31