Post on 18-Dec-2014
description
www.trafficlogix.com
Welcome to Traffic Logix’s webinar: Real life challenges and design presented by:Fehr & Peers Consulting GroupSteve Brown, Seleta Reynolds, Christine Carey
For technical difficulties call 1-866-915-6449 ext 230or
e-mail support@trafficlogix.com
Host and Moderator ----- Craig C TimothyVice President of Traffic Logix &Director of Business DevelopmentTwenty –three years of experience working local government transportation
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
Steven Brown, PE
- 25 years of experience in transportation planning 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 and projects for 25+ agencies
- Co-author of the US Traffic Calming Manual.
Seleta Reynolds, AICP
- 12 years of experience planning, funding, and implementing active transportation projects
- Created traffic calming plans for neighborhoods in cities from Sonoma, CA to Portland, ME.
- Member of the TRB Pedestrian Committee
- Three-time President of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.
Christine Carey, PE, AICP
- 10 years of engineering and urban planning experience.
- BS in CE from Carnegie Mellon
- MS in City and Regional Planning from Pratt Institute
- Managed numerous traffic calming projects and programs, including the City of Fort Bragg, City of New Rochelle, and University of San Francisco.
La Habra Traffic CalmingTextbook Approach
East Neighborhood Plan
Plan ProcessPlan Process
December 13, 2006November 14
October 11, 2006September 14, 2006August 30, 2006
February 28, 2007
May 2007
Type of Measure Low Estimate
High Estimate
Unit Quantity Sub‐Total
Speed Lumps $2,000 $5,000 per location
20 $100,000
Raised Crosswalk $4,000 $8,000 per location
2 $16,000
Neckdown/Bulbout $10,000 $20,000 per location
1 $20,000
Center Island Narrowing
$6,000 $12,000 per location
1 $12,000
Chicane $10,000 $20,000 per location
1 $20,000
Turn‐Movement Restrictions
$150 $250 per sign 2 $500
Turn‐Movement Restrictions
$150 $250 per sign 2 $500
TOTAL = $168,500
Construction Cost
Comments Received from General PublicCommittee to Review
Approval Process
• Neighborhood Survey
• 50% Minimum Response Rate
• 67% Approval Rate
• City Council
Advertised Via:
• Signage
• Newsletter
• Website
• TV channel
Post Project Data
Post Project Data
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
Photos courtesy of Michael Throne, City of Benicia
Case Study: City of Benicia
Outline
• Overview of the City’s program
• Review of it in practice
• Design solutions for major roads
• Lessons learned
Benicia’s Traffic Calming Program
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
Major Road Test Case
Approach ‐ Overview
• Flexible approach to outreach
• User‐friendly tools that help citizens understand real‐time effects
• Simulation makes complex interactions easy to view
Photos courtesy of Michael Throne, City of Benicia
In the toolbox:
• Lane Narrowing
• Gateway Treatments
• Medians
• Signals and Roundabouts
• Road Diets/Lane Reductions
10 Foot
Wide Lane
Santa Cruz, California
Lane Conversions (4 to 3 Lane)
Roadway Location Date Change
ADT Before
ADT After
Collision Reduction
Greenwood Ave NN 80th St to N 50th
Apr‐95 11872 12427 24 to 1058%
N 45th StreetWallingford Area
Dec‐72 19421 20274 45 to 2349%
8th Ave NWBallard Area
Jan‐94 10549 11858 18 to 761%
Martin luther King Jr WNorth of I 90
Jan‐94 12336 13161 15 to 660%
Dexter Ave NQueen Ann Area
Jun‐91 13606 14949 19 to 1659%
24th Ave NWNW 85th to NW 65th
Oct‐ 95 9727 9754 14 to 1028%
Recommendations
Lessons Learned
• Simulation revealed non‐intuitive solutions• Partners are critical to implementation
Case Study: City of Fort Bragg, CA
Outline
• Planning Framework
• Approach to Traffic Calming
• Outreach and Agency Coordination
• Recommended Improvements
Planning Framework
CA‐1
Planning Framework
Approach to Traffic Calming
Data Collection
• Volume
• Speed
• Collisions
Volume
Speed
Collisions
Approach to Traffic Calming
Data Collection
Observe Existing Conditions
Approach to Traffic Calming
Data Collection
Observe Existing Conditions
Identify Range of Solutions
Outreach & Agency Coordination
• 2 open house workshops• Stakeholder meetings• Walking audit of the project areas• City Council workshop
Recommended Improvements
Summary
Fir Street
• Mini traffic circles• Speed cushions• High‐visibility crosswalks• Restripe/narrow travel lanes
• Cost estimate: $50‐75k• Speed reduction: 4‐9mph• Volume reduction: 5‐7%
Harold Street
• Curb extensions• Centerline striping at corner• Speed cushions • High‐visibility crosswalks• Splitter islands • Flashing stop sign withadvance signage/stop bars
• Cost estimate: $150‐200k• Speed reduction: 3‐9mph• Volume reduction: 7‐10%
Beverly Hills, CAGreat Plan & Poor Trial
Existing Problems
AREA-WIDE PROBLEMS
Excess ive Truck Tr aff ic
WILSHIRE BLVD.
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
GREGORY WAY
OLYMPIC BLVD.
REEV
ES D
R.
CAN
ON
DR.
CRE
SCEN
T DR.
ELM
DR.
REXF
ORD
DR.
MAP
LE D
R.
PALM
DR.
OAK
HURS
T DR
.
DOHE
NY D
R.
BEVE
RLY D
R.
GENERAL GROUPINGS OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMSANECTODAL COMMITTEE COMMENTS FROM MEETING A2
Pedestri an SafetySpee dsCut-Through Traff icMisuse o f AlleysParking Sh ortage
CUT-T
HRU
PEAK
H
OUR
CONG
ESTIO
N
SAFE
TY
VOLU
MES/
SPEE
DS
SPEE
DS
SPEE
DS
CUT-THRU STOP SIGN VIOLATIONSCU
T-THR
U/PAR
KING
SHOR
TAGE
F IGURE 1
PEAK
HOU
R VOL
UMES
/CUT-T
HRU
VOLU
MES/S
PEED
S/CUT
-THRU
PEAK
HOUR
CON
GEST
ION
CUT-THRU/STOP SIGN VIOLATIONS
Existing 85th %ile Speeds
LEGEND
- S top S ig n
- T raf fic Sign al
EX ISTING FEATURES:
- Sch oo ls
- All-Way Stop
- Spe ed Hum p
- Em ergency Respo nse Ro ute
WILSHIRE BLVD.
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
GREGORY WAY
OLYMPIC BLVD.
REEV
ES D
R.
CAN
ON
DR.
CRE
S CEN
T DR.
ELM
DR .
REXF
ORD
DR.
MAP
LE D
R.
PALM
DR .
OAK
H URS
T DR
.
D OHE
N Y D
R.
B EVE
R LY D
R.
85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDS
XX/YY - 85th Percentile Traffic SpeedsXX=Southbound or WestboundYY=Northbound or Eastbound
17/1730
/33
37/3
2
34/3
5
33/3
3
39/35
35/3
5
33/3
5FIGURE
Existing Volumes
LEG END
- Stop S ign
- Traf fic Signal
EX ISTING FEATURES:
- Schools
- Speed Hump
- Em ergency Response Route
WILSHIRE BLVD.
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
GREGORY WAY
OLYMPIC BLVD.
REEV
ES D
R.
CAN
ON
DR.
CRE
SCEN
T DR.
ELM
DR.
REXF
ORD
DR.
MAP
LE D
R.
PALM
DR.
OAK
HURS
T D
R.
DOHE
NY D
R.
BEVE
RLY D
R.
AVERAGE DAILY T RAFFIC VOLU MES - EXISTING CONDITIONSREVISED APRIL 16, 2 00 1
500 - Bi -Directional Average Daily Traff ic Volum es
2,60
02,
000
1,80
0
1,50
0
5,80
0
1,20
0
800
2,60
0
1,70
0
3,500
2,10
0
6,60
0
1,60
0
1,40
0
2,00
0
1,800
2,50
0
1,900
5,70
0
2,40
0
1,20
0
2,00
0
17,0
00
51,600
47,900WILSHIRE @LINDEN
BEVERLY @DAYTON
23,600
3,00
04,9
00
6,700 5,200
4,400 3,900
Non-Local Traffic Distribution
NON-LOCAL TRAFFIC DIST RIBUT ION
EASTBOUNDNON-LOCAL
TRAFFIC
WESTBOUNDNON-LOCAL
TRAFFIC
NORTHBOUNDNON-LOCAL
TRAFFIC
SOUTHBOUNDNON-LOCAL
TRAFFIC
Objectives: Stop Sign Violations
Measured Range Objective
17% to 75% Stop 50%42% to 92% Stop/Roll 90%
Objectives: 85th Percentile Speeds
Measured Range Of 85% Speeds 17 – 39 mph
Objective
25mph 85%ile35mph Max
Objectives: Non-Local Traffic
Location % ReductionAverage of All Streets 60% ReductionMin. for Each Street 25% Reduction
Scenario ILEGEND
- Stop S ign
- Traf fic Signal
- Traf fic Circ le
- Pedest rian Island
- Parall el Parki ng on Both S i des
EX ISTING FEATURES:
PR OPO SED DEVIC ES:
- Schools
- All-Way Stops at A ll Internal Intersections (not shown on map)
- Speed Hump
- Maj or Emergency Respon se Rou te
WILSHIRE BLVD.
GREGORY WAY
OLYMPIC BLVD.
REEV
ES D
R.
CAN
ON
DR.
CRE
SCEN
T DR.
ELM
DR.
REXF
ORD
DR.
MAP
LE D
R.
PALM
DR.
OAK
HURS
T DR
.
DOHE
NY D
R.
BEVE
RLY D
R.
- Speed Table
- Midblo ck Is land
SCENARIO I
- High V is ibi lity Cros swalk
- Speed Legends at All Ent rys (n ot sh own on map)
- Rai sed Intersection
25
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
- Turn Rest ri cti on
- Local Emerge ncy Response Route
Scenario IILEGEND
- S top S ig n
- T raf fic Signal
- T raf fic Circ le
- Pedestrian I sland
- Parallel Parki ng on Both Si des
EXISTING AND SCENARIO FEATURES:I
PRO POSED DEVICES:
- Schools
- All-Way Stop at All Internal Intersections (Not Shown on Map)
- M ajor Emergency Response Route
WILSHIRE BLVD.
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
GREGORY WAY
OLYMPIC BLVD.
REEV
ES D
R.
CAN
ON
DR.
CRE
SCEN
T DR.
ELM
DR.
REXF
ORD
DR.
MAP
LE D
R.
PALM
DR.
OAK
HURS
T DR
.
DOHE
NY D
R.
BEVE
RLY
DR.
- Speed Table- M idblock Island
SC ENARIO II
- H igh Vis ibi lity Crosswa lk
- R ai sed Intersec tion
- F orced-Turn Is land
- T urn Rest ri cti on
- T urn Rest ri cti on
- L ocal Emergency Response R oute
(Painted or Raised)
Scenario IIILEGEND
- Stop S ign
- Traf fic Signal
- Traf fic Circ le
- Pedest rian I sland
- Parall el Parki ng on Both S i des
EXISTING AND SCENARIO FEATURES:I/II
PR OPO SED DEVIC ES:
- Schools
- All-Way Stop at All Internal Intersections (Not Shown on Map)
WILSHIRE BLVD.
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
GREGORY WAY
OLYMPIC BLVD.
REEV
ES D
R.
CAN
ON
DR.
CRE
SCEN
T DR.
ELM
DR.
REXF
ORD
DR.
MAP
LE D
R.
PALM
DR.
OAK
HURS
T DR
.
DOHE
NY D
R.
BEVE
RLY D
R.
- Speed Table
- Midblo ck Is land
- High V is ibi lity Cros swalk
- Rai sed Intersection
- Turn Rest ri cti on
- Forced-Tur n Island
- Hal f Closur e
SCENARIO III
- Forced-Tur n Island
- Maj or Emergency Respon se Rou te
- Local Emerge ncy Response Route
( Pa inted or Raised)
Estimated Reduced 85th Percentile Speeds
E/W Streets Range AverageExisting 17-27 23Scenario I 16-25 22Scenario II 16-25 22Scenario III 16-25 22
N/S Streets Range AverageExisting 30-38 35Scenario I 30-34 32Scenario II 28-34 31Scenario III 25-31 29
Estimated Reduction in Non-Local Traffic
All Streets Range AverageScenario I 29-56% 38%Scenario II 33-82% 60%Scenario III 58-84% 73%
Estimated Increase in Traffic on Arterial Streets
Wilshire Olympic Beverly Doheny
Scenario I +4% +4% +7% +10%
Scenario II +7% +7% +10% +13%
Scenario III +8% +7% +15% +21%
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.
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.
Circle Dimensions
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.
For More Information or Specific Questions Contact:
• Craig Timothy, Traffic Logix– ctimothy@trafficlogix.com– 801-712-9010
• Steve Brown, Fehr & Peers (La Habra, Beverley’s Hills)– sbrown@fehrandpeers.com– 949-306-3308
• Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers (Benicia)– sreynolds@fehrandpeers.com– 425-820-0100
• Christine Carey, Fehr & Peers (Ft Bragg)– ccarey@fehrandpeers.com– 415-348-0300
Questions and Answers
www.trafficlogix.com