1. Welcome to Traffic Logix’s webinar: Real life challenges and design presented by: Fehr & Peers Consulting Group Steve Brown, Seleta Reynolds, Christine CareyFor technical difficulties call 1-866-915-6449 ext 230 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org www.trafficlogix.com
2. Host and Moderator ----- Craig C Timothy Vice President of Traffic Logix & Director of Business Development Twenty –three years of experience working local government transportation
3. Fehr & Peers:• Transportation Planning/Engineering Firm• 200 employees in 13 Offices• Work throughout US, Asia, and Middle East• Leaders in Traffic Calming since 1995• Co-authors of US Traffic Calming Manual• Developed and maintain trafficalming .org
4. Steven Brown, PE- 25 years of experience in transportationplanning and traffic engineering- BS and MS from UC Berkeley in CE- MBA from Golden Gate University- Managed projects in 10 states- Created traffic calming programs andprojects for 25+ agencies- Co-author of the US Traffic CalmingManual.
5. Seleta Reynolds, AICP- 12 years of experience planning,funding, and implementing activetransportation projects- Created traffic calming plans forneighborhoods in cities from Sonoma, CAto Portland, ME.- Member of the TRB PedestrianCommittee- Three-time President of the Associationof Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.
6. Christine Carey, PE, AICP- 10 years of engineering and urbanplanning experience.- BS in CE from Carnegie Mellon- MS in City and Regional Planning fromPratt Institute- Managed numerous traffic calmingprojects and programs, including theCity of Fort Bragg, City of New Rochelle,and University of San Francisco.
7. La Habra Traffic CalmingTextbook Approach
8. East Neighborhood Plan
9. Plan Process August 30, 2006 September 14, 2006 October 11, 2006November 14 December 13, 2006 February 28, 2007 May 2007
10. Construction CostType of Measure Low High Unit Quantity Sub‐Total Estimate EstimateSpeed Lumps $2,000 $5,000 per 20 $100,000 locationRaised Crosswalk $4,000 $8,000 per 2 $16,000 locationNeckdown/Bulbout $10,000 $20,000 per 1 $20,000 locationCenter Island $6,000 $12,000 per 1 $12,000Narrowing locationChicane $10,000 $20,000 per 1 $20,000 locationTurn‐Movement $150 $250 per sign 2 $500RestrictionsTurn‐Movement $150 $250 per sign 2 $500Restrictions TOTAL = $168,500
11. Comments Received from General PublicCommittee to Review
12. Approval Process• Neighborhood Survey• 50% Minimum Response Rate• 67% Approval Rate• City Council
13. Advertised Via:• Signage• Newsletter• Website• TV channel
14. Post Project Data
15. Post Project Data
16. Post Project Data• Replicated locations and time of “before” counts• Presented results to committee members• Staff and committee recommended minor changes – move one hump and add one hump• Presented to City Council for final adoption and approval for supplemental items
17. Photos courtesy of Michael Throne, City of Benicia
18. Case Study: City of Benicia
19. Outline• Overview of the City’s program• Review of it in practice• Design solutions for major roads• Lessons learned
20. Benicia’s Traffic Calming Program
21. Two‐Tiered Program• Minor roads are handled through a neighborhood‐ based process.• Major roads are handled through the City’s Traffic, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Safety Committee.• Major roads and minor roads have slightly different toolboxes
22. Major Road Test Case
23. Approach ‐ Overview• Flexible approach to outreach• User‐friendly tools that help citizens understand real‐time effects • Simulation makes complex interactions easy to view
24. Photos courtesy of Michael Throne, City of Benicia
25. In the toolbox:• Lane Narrowing• Gateway Treatments• Medians• Signals and Roundabouts• Road Diets/Lane Reductions
26. 10 Foot Wide LaneSanta Cruz, California
27. Lane Conversions (4 to 3 Lane)Roadway Location Date ADT ADT Collision Reduction Change Before AfterGreenwood Ave N Apr‐95 11872 12427 24 to 10N 80th St to N 50th 58%N 45th Street Dec‐72 19421 20274 45 to 23Wallingford Area 49%8th Ave NW Jan‐94 10549 11858 18 to 7Ballard Area 61%Martin luther King Jr W Jan‐94 12336 13161 15 to 6North of I 90 60%Dexter Ave N Jun‐91 13606 14949 19 to 16Queen Ann Area 59%24th Ave NW Oct‐ 95 9727 9754 14 to 10NW 85th to NW 65th 28%
29. Lessons Learned• Simulation revealed non‐intuitive solutions• Partners are critical to implementation
30. Case Study: City of Fort Bragg, CA
31. Outline• Planning Framework• Approach to Traffic Calming• Outreach and Agency Coordination• Recommended Improvements
44. Existing Problems WILSHIREBLVD. CUT-THRU/PARKING SHORTAGE PEAK HOUR VOLUMES/CUT-THRU PEA K HOUR CONGES TION SAFETY AREA-WIDE PROBLEMS E VD. CHARLEVILL BL CUT-THRU STOP SIGN VIOLATIONS Exces iv e Truck T aff c s r i Pedest r an Saf ety i HOUR CONGESTION VOLUMES/SPEEDS VOLUMES/SPEEDS/CUT-THRU CUT- THRU Spe ds e Cut-Throug Traff ic h SPEEDSBEVERLYDR. Mi use o f Alley s s Parking Sh ort age GREGORY WAY CUT-THRU/STOP SIGN VIOLATIONS PEAK OAKHURS DR. CRESCENT DR. XFORD DR. CANON DR. REEVES DR. SPE EDS MAPLE DR. DOHENY DR. ALM DR. EL DR M . T P RE OLYMPIC BLVD. F IGURE 1 GENERAL GRO UPINGS OF TRAFFIC PRO BLEMS ANECTODAL COMMITTEE COMMENTS FROM MEETING A2
45. Existing 85th %ile SpeedsWILSHIRE BLVD. CHARLEVIL B . LE LVD 17/17 LEGEND XX/YY - 85th Per centile Traffic Speeds XX=Southbound or WestboundBEVERLYDR. YY=Nor thbound or Eastbound 37/32 33/33 30/33 34/35 35/35 39/35 33/35 EX ISTI NG FEATURE S: - S t op S i n g - T raf fi Sign al c GREGORY WAY - S ch o ls o - All-Way St op ESCENTDR. OAKHURS DR. REXFORD DR. RE S DR. CANON DR. MAPLE DR. - S pe e Hum p d ELM DR. DOHE DR. ALM DR. T EVE NY - E m ergenc y Res p nse R ute o o CR P OLYMPI B C LVD. FIGURE 85TH PER CENTILE SPEEDS
46. 23 BEVER Y @ L DAYT N O , 60 WILSHIRE@ 0 LINDEN 47, 900 Existing Volumes WI HIR BL LS E VD. 2,400 17,000 5,70 0 4,900 2,000 1,800 1,200 2,500 1,900 6,700 CHARLEVILLE BL . VD 5,200 LEG END BEVERL DR. DOHENY DR. 50 0 - Bi -Direc tional Av erage Daily 6,600 3,500 1,700 1,600 2,100 1,400 2,000 Y Traff ic Volum es 2,600 EX ISTI NG FEATURES: - St op S ign - Traf fic Signal 4,400 GREGORY WAY 3,900 - Sc hools - Speed Hump OAKHURS DR. CRESCENTDR. REXFORD DR. - Em ergenc y Res ponse Route CANON DR REEVES DR. . 5,80 0 MAPLE DR. 1,200 1,50 0 1,80 0 3,00 0 ALM DR. 2,000 2,600 ELM DR. 800 T P OLYMPIC BLVD. 51,600 AVERAGE D LY T RAFFI C VO L MES - EXISTI NG CONDITI ONS AI U REVI SED APRIL 16, 2 0 1 0
47. Non-Local Traffic Distribution EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND NON-LOCAL NON-LOCAL TRAFFIC TRAFFIC WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NON-LOCAL NON-LOCAL TRAFFIC TRAFFIC NON-LOCAL TRAFFIC D IST RIBUT ION
48. Objectives: Stop Sign ViolationsMeasured Range Objective17% to 75% Stop 50%42% to 92% Stop/Roll 90%
49. Objectives: 85th Percentile SpeedsMeasured Range Of 85% Speeds 17 – 39 mphObjective25mph 85%ile35mph Max
50. Objectives: Non-Local TrafficLocation % ReductionAverage of All Streets 60% ReductionMin. for Each Street 25% Reduction
51. WILSHIREBLVD. Scenario I LEGEND EX ISTI NG FEATURE S: - St o S ign p CHAR VILLE BLVD. LE - Traf fic Signal - Sc hools - All-Way St ops at A ll I nt ernal Intersec tions (not shown on map)BEVERLYDR. - Speed Hump - Maj or Emergenc y Respon se Rou te - Local E merge ncy Res pons e Rout e - Tur Rest r ct on n i i GREGORY WAY P OP SED DE VI ES: R O C - Traf fic Circ le OAKHURS DR. CRESCENT DR. XFORD DR. EVES DR. CANON DR. MAPLE DR. DOHENY DR. ALM DR. EL DR M . T - Pedes t rian I sland - Paral el Park ng on B ot h S i des l i RE P RE - Speed Table - Midbl ck Is land o - High V is ibi lity Cros swalk OLYMPIC BLVD. - Rai sed Inters ec tion 25 - Speed Legends at All E nt ry n ot s own o map) ( h n s SCENARI O I
52. Scenario II WILSHIRE BLVD. LEGEND EX ISTI NG A ND S CE NA RI O I FE ATURES: - S t op S i n g - T raf fic Signal E VD. CHAR VILL BL LE - S c hools - All-Way St op at All Internal Intersec tions (Not S hown on Map)BEVER DR LY . - M ajor Emergenc y Res ponse Route - L ocal E mergency Res pons e R out e - T raf fic Circ le - P edestrian I sland - P arallel Parki n on B oth Si des g GREGORY WAY - S peed Table - M idblock I sland - H igh Vi ibi lity Cros swa lk s - R ai sed Int ers e tion c OAKHURST DR. ESCE DR NT . REXFORD DR. CANON DR. REEVE DR. MAPL DR E . DOHENY DR. E DR. ALM DR. - T urn Rest ri cti o n S LM P PRO PO E D DE VICE S : S CR - F orced-Turn Is land (Painted or Rais ed) OLYMPIC BLVD. - T urn Rest ri cti o n SC ENARIO II
53. Scenario III WI HIRE BL . LS VD LEGEND EX ISTI NG A ND S CE NA RI O I/II FEATURE S: - St o S ign p - Traf fic Signal CHAR VILLE BLVD. LE - Sc hools - All-Way St op at All Internal Intersec tions (Not S hown on Map)BEVERLYDR. - Maj or Emergenc y Respon se Rou te - Local E merge ncy Res pons e Rout e - Traf fic Circ le - Pedes t rian I sland - Paral el Park ng on B ot h S i des l i GREGORY WAY - Speed Table - Midbl ck Is land o - High V is ibi lity Cros swalk - Rai sed Inters ec tion OAKHURS DR. ESCENT DR. XFORD DR. CANON DR. RE S DR. - Tur Rest r ct on n i i MAPLE DR. DOHENY DR. ALM DR. ELM DR. T EVE - Forced-Tur n Is lan d ( P n t ed or Rais ed) ai P RE CR P OP SED DE VI ES: R O C OLYMPIC BLVD. - Hal f Closur e - Forced-Tur n Is lan d SCENARIO III
54. Estimated Reduced 85th Percentile SpeedsE/W Streets Range AverageExisting 17-27 23Scenario I 16-25 22Scenario II 16-25 22Scenario III 16-25 22N/S Streets Range AverageExisting 30-38 35Scenario I 30-34 32Scenario II 28-34 31Scenario III 25-31 29
55. Estimated Reduction in Non-Local TrafficAll Streets Range AverageScenario I 29-56% 38%Scenario II 33-82% 60%Scenario III 58-84% 73%
56. Estimated Increase in Trafficon Arterial Streets Wilshire Olympic Beverly DohenyScenario I +4% +4% +7% +10%Scenario II +7% +7% +10% +13%Scenario III +8% +7% +15% +21%
57. Committee Recommendation• Two‐phased approach, starting with primarily speed control (Scenario I) and moving towards volume control if results are not satisfactory.• Conduct field tests to measure impact to Fire Department response time.
58. Field Tests• Fire Department brought trucks and ladders to the site.• Staff placed cones to represent circles and median islands.• Fire Department did “test” runs with and without the devices.• Circles added 25 seconds per location, compared to 5-8 seconds as national norm.
59. Circle Dimensions
60. Key Learnings• Fire Department has a valid but very narrow mission.• Someone at the City (manager or council) needed to balance Fire Dept needs against other public safety and livability needs.• Field tests should be done with actual devices or very similar.
61. For More Information or Specific Questions Contact:• Craig Timothy, Traffic Logix – email@example.com – 801-712-9010• Steve Brown, Fehr & Peers (La Habra, Beverley’s Hills) – firstname.lastname@example.org – 949-306-3308• Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers (Benicia) – email@example.com – 425-820-0100• Christine Carey, Fehr & Peers (Ft Bragg) – firstname.lastname@example.org – 415-348-0300