VI-7. TRAFFIC CALMING

Transcription

1 VI-7. TRAFFIC CALMING Calm vehicle traffic to enhance livability and improve safety in all areas of the City. Traffic calming in neighborhoods has been a major focus of the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department for the last seven years. Speeding and cut through traffic in neighborhoods was one of the top neighborhood issues raised by respondents in the neighborhood workshops. There are currently twenty-four neighborhood requests for traffic calming pending in the study queue. A key objective of the Master Transportation Study is to identify a new methodology to address theses issues, based on principles of expanding travel choices, providing relief to traffic congestion, enhancing livability, and achieving sustainability. THE SEABRIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN The Seabright Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) is a MTS case study. The project developed and refined a process for addressing neighborhood impacts of traffic on a large, area-wide basis. Previously, traffic calming in Santa Cruz was conducted on a street-by-street and case-by-case basis with little public participation at the neighborhood area level. Figure 14 shows the first phase of traffic calming improvements in Seabright and Figure 15 shows a second phase of improvements. A report on the Seabright Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan is included in the appendix. The Seabright NTMP case study is successful in the following ways: 1. A process was established for developing neighborhood area-wide traffic calming plans with community involvement; 2. A toolbox of possible traffic calming measures was developed and tested in the public forum; 3. The City gained credibility in proceeding with a large-scae neighborhood plan that involved the community and attempted to address neighborhood issues with MTS strategies; and 4. It identified weaknesses in the process such as the number of public meetings needed to correspond to the size of the area, the degree of the problem, and the innovative characteristics of the proposal. In the case of Seabright Area these factors suggested more meetings were necessary to educate area residents and fine-tune the proposal before taking it to the City Transportation Commission. Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 155

2 Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 156 Figure 14

3 Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 157 Figure 15

4 A RECOMMENDED PLANNING PROCESS The following planning process is recommended to carry out future Neighborhood Traffic Management Planning efforts. 1. The neighborhood must be identified. Neighborhood traffic planning areas have been identified which have homogenous traffic issues. Figure 16 is a Neighborhood Traffic Planning Area Map. An area or a combination of areas might be selected on the basis of the number of requests in the area or because another project or planning effort in the area suggests a coordinated effort is beneficial to the City. Residents would request NTP services by submitting letters of interest to the City Transportation Commission. It is suggested that the Transportation Commission consider scheduling this once a year and recommend a NTMP target area to the Council. 2. The objective of the initial community meeting will be to identify issues not already known, to identify a Working Group for the remainder of the process including a subcommittee of CTC members, and to educate the residents about the process and solution set. 3. The Working Group would meet two times to develop a plan for the area. The working group will include representation from the Fire Department and the Police department to lend expertise on enforcement and emergency response issues. 4. The Working Group, with the help of staff, would present the draft plan at another full area meeting. The education component would be presented again. The objective of the meeting would be to receive comments on the proposal. 5. The Working Group would hold an additional meeting to revise the draft plan based on the testimony of the area meeting. 6. The Working Group would present the revised draft plan to the City Transportation Commission at an advertised public meeting. The objective of the meeting would be for the CTC to recommend a plan to the City Council. 7. The Working Group and the CTC would present the plan to the City Council for their final approval and implementation. 8. The plan would be implemented, as funds are available from grants, new funding sources, new development, and private individual or neighborhood funding. OBJECTIVES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED TRAFFIC CALMING Implementation of traffic calming strategies can achieve the following neighborhoodbased objectives: Reduce cut-through traffic Reduce speeding Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 158

5 Improve pedestrian and bicycle environment and safety Improve overall neighborhood livability Maintain traffic flow on arterials Increase travel choices for residents Increase aesthetics through streetscape measures Ensure accessibility while protecting neighborhoods Provide multimodal connectivity Ensure neighborhood acceptance with aesthetic designs Avoid barriers and isolating neighborhoods Develop an area-wide plan with elements that work in unison and benefit the entire neighborhood Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 159

6 Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 160

7 A TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT A key component of neighborhood traffic management is educating the public about different traffic calming tools and their effectiveness, costs, and trade-offs. Methods include: Traditional Solutions A variety of traditional methods to address neighborhood traffic management exist in the following categories: Enforcement of existing traffic and parking regulations can be very effective in addressing neighborhood issues. Education of the residents and the visitors to the area is also effective in responding to the concerns of the neighborhood. Engineering such as road design elements, curb extensions, and speed humps are also effective tools when appropriately placed. Some of the primary traffic engineering tools are described in the attached figures. "Aesthetics," where community sensitive design can have a calming effect on the transportation in the area. Aesthetics can be improved through streetscape and landscaping measures. Neighborhood acceptance will be greater with aesthetic and more permanent designs. "Soft" vs. "Hard" Solutions Typically cities have focused on "hard" solutions such as the engineering solutions described above, but "soft" solutions such as education and promotion can be similarly effective and should be initiated first before the "hard" typically more expensive solution is implemented. At a minimum the "soft" solutions, that are often more sustainable, may allow phasing in "hard" solutions over time. It is incumbent on the City to facilitate the implementation of "soft" solutions so as to maximize the benefit derived from the limited resources available for traffic calming. Resident Initiatives Residents can improve the livability of the neighborhood and reduce traffic impacts in their own neighborhoods. The following are a number of examples of "soft solutions." Park a car on the street. This will narrow the travel way and discourage speeding. Drive within speed limit. This will affect all other vehicles behind the safe driver. Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 161

8 Plant a tree in front of your house. This visually narrows the street and aesthetically reminds the driver that street livability takes precedence over vehicle travel. Walk or ride a bike for some trips. This will reduce some car trips and will encourage others to do the same. Stop for pedestrians. This is the law but will also affect vehicles waiting behind the lawful driver. Participate in the Pace Car Program where motorists slow traffic by driving at the speed limit and placing a sign on their car announcing they are a pace car. Engineering or "Hard" Solutions Innovative engineering solutions can achieve multiple neighborhood-based traffic calming objectives. The following pages show some example solutions with estimates of cost and effectiveness in reducing speed. FUNDING OPTIONS The lack of a regular funding source for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is a key issue. Conventional and alternative funding sources need to be pursued by the both City and the community. These include: Non-traditional funding Grass roots funding Community/neighborhood financing Community match program Local business construction/donations Sponsorship of demonstration projects Traditional funding City CIP and General fund Improvement districts Impact fees Federal/state grants Local/regional measures (i.e., sales tax) Development conditions Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 162

9 Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 163

10 Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 164

11 Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 165

12 Master Transportation Study VI-7. Traffic Calming, page 166