LENOX AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY

LENOX AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY A NEIGHBOR-LED SAFE STREETS INITIATIVE Public Forum - August 10, 2016

WHO WE ARE: Mark Grady Ron Charles Alison McInerney -

Objective: A holistic long term solution to the existing and growing traffic problems that plague Lenox Avenue. Use data to understand root cause and apply industry / government best practices for an effective solution.

What is the Problem? The curves & grade changes at the intersections gives rise to line-of-sight issues where Lenox Ave intersects Wyoming & South Ridgewood. Large grade changes along Lenox Ave lead to (likely) speed issue, which exacerbates the line of sight issue. Lenox Ave is the only nearby local street to link 3 major collector roadways, leading to higher volume which exacerbates the speed and line of sight issues. GPS and Navigation Apps (i.e. Google Maps) direct motorists to use Lenox Avenue with regularity; ignoring that it is designated as a local road.

How Dangerous is it? OPRA requests for 10+ years of Lenox Ave crash data yield: 22 crashes at Wyoming intersection in the last 11 years (including 1 fatality). 19 crashes at the South Ridgewood intersection in the last 11 years. 6 crashes at the Walton intersection in the last 11 years. Of these 47 crashes, 85% involved a vehicle using Lenox Avenue. Crash Trend Across 3 Intersections / Year 5 5 5.2 4.4 3.2 5.6 4.4 The NHTSA crash rate during daylight hours is 25%. Lenox Ave intersection crash rate during daylight hours is 87%. (no headlights to warn of approaching vehicle) Only 10% of crashes resulted in the issuance of a moving violation. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ridgewood/Lenox Crash Analysis (2005-2015) 16 16 6 4 1 2 3 7 9 10 11 13 14 18 19 No. Date Time Weather Road Light 1 Jan 3, 2005 12:11pm Clear Dry Daylight 2 Aug 12, 2006 1.12pm Clear Dry Daylight 3 Jan 29, 2008 1:47pm Rain Wet Daylight 4 Aug 12, 2009 8:41am Clear Dry Daylight 5 Oct 27, 2009 5:56pm Rain Wet Dark 6 Jul 24, 2010 11:27am Clear Dry Daylight 7 Jul 30, 2010 1 :24pm Clear Dry Daylight 8 Jul 4, 2011 8:50pm Clear Dry Daylight 9 Oct 2, 2011 2:35pm Clear Dry Daylight 10 Dec 26, 2011 3:12pm Clear Dry Daylight 11 Aug 12, 2012 4:30pm Clear Dry Daylight 12 Apr 1, 2013 4:48pm Rain Wet Daylight 13 Jul 13, 2013 8:52am Clear Wet Daylight 14 Oct 23, 2013 5:15pm Clear Dry Daylight 15 Mar 1, 2014 2:05pm Clear Wet Daylight 16 Jul 23, 2014 7:14pm Clear Dry Daylight 17 Dec 28, 2014 5:13pm Clear Dry Dark 18 Feb 13, 2015 1:40pm Clear Dry Daylight 19 May 20, 2015 6:42pm Clear Dry Daylight 6 4 5 12 17 17 12 5 19 18 14 13 11 10 9 7 3 2 1

ADJUSTED COMPARATIVE CRASH TOTALS 22 (21) 0 The numbers indicate crash totals at area intersections from 1/1/05 to 7/1/16. 1 (1) 0 0 The first number indicates total crashes and the parenthetical notation indicates crashes involving a vehicle using Lenox Ave. For instance, the 1 crash at Lenox Place & Cedar Lane was the result of a single vehicle colliding with a temporary water pipe along the curb. Intersection opposing traffic did not play a part. 0 1 (0) 19 (17) 1 (0) 8 (6) TBD 0 TBD 6 (3) 1 (0) 7 (1)

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH Collected destination data at the 3 major intersections on a typical design-day Included vehicles, pedestrians & bicycles Included approach & destination of everything passing through each intersection Stitched videos together to quantify how many cars use Lenox Ave for non-local means. Total of 52 hours of video watched to manually tabulate each movement. Volume leak at Thornden, Lenox Pl, & Lenox Terrace results in a more conservative (i.e. higher) % of local traffic.

9 7 8 LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH 3 5 4 6 1 2

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH Overall, over 62% of all cars using Lenox Ave are non-local traffic NON-LOCAL PERCENTAGE TRAFFIC ENTERING LENOX MINOR CONNECTION MAJOR CONNECTION

VOLUME & SPEED RESEARCH SOPD collected data at Lenox Ave/Ridgewood Rd intersection Manual counts from videos verified by SOPD tube data 85 th percentile speed is the determining factor for confirming a speed problem. For a 25 mph speed limit, 35 mph is the determining factor for the 85 th percentile to trigger that speed is a problem. Additional neighborhood numbers are required to give us a picture of overall flow & the comparative peak flows across all area streets. Full data set will significantly confirm whether speed and/or volume are significant factors for the elevated crash risk.

PLANNED VOLUME & SPEED COLLECTION ADT (85 th % speed) Significant data collection required of volume & speed at all indicated locations to verify anecdotal understanding of neighborhood flow & determine where speed problems exist. 85 th percentile speed at each indicated location will be significant to determining where speed control improvements are needed.

RESEARCH South Orange Transportation Advisory Committee (SOTAC) South Orange Public Safety Committee (SOPS) NJDOT Roadway Design Manual Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Federal Highway Administration guidelines (FHWA) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines (NHTSA) Rutgers University Voorhees Transportation Center State and Municipal planning documents delineating which area roads are major collectors (Wyoming, Ridgewood, & Walton) and which are local (all other streets) State and County planning documents delineating Wyoming as a County Road NJDOT Design Manual: a posted speed of 25 mph requires a 30 mph design speed NJDOT Design Manual: stopping sight distance for 30 mph design speed is 200 feet minimum

How Do We Solve It? Considerations and criteria for each potential solution: Does Lenox Ave meet required technical design/installation criteria? Does the solution meet Town, State and Municipal guidelines? What is relative cost? What are maintenance considerations? What is the anticipated impact to the overall neighborhood (surrounding streets in South Orange and Maplewood)? Can it be tested/piloted easily?

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Speed Humps / Bumps Criteria Details Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Less than 3,000 ADT, max posted speed limit of 25MPH, max roadway grade of 8%. Requires NJDOT approval. Emergency Services do not recommend. Low but ongoing. Moderate due to snow plow damage. Will slow vehicles at humps, may cause speed increase between. May reduce traffic flow. Parking loss where located. Yes. Temporary humps can be installed.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures 4-Way Stop Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Other Details Typically requires roughly equivalent traffic volume thru intersection. Can likely be adopted by local ordinance w/o county or NJDOT review. No impact to Emergency Services. Minimal. Minimal (roadway paint upkeep). Enforcement required for effectiveness. Yes due to low cost. Not generally intended as a traffic calming measure. Additional discussion later in this presentation.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Road Redesign (Intersection realignment) Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Other Details Requires sizeable financial commitment to obtain private land & complete construction. NJDOT review expected with approval required. Extremely High. Minimal after initial construction. Significant construction effort & purchase of private land. No. No clear reconfiguration applicable at Wyoming/Lenox intersection.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Rumble Strips Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Details Typically installed as a warning of stop ahead. Location per NJDOT guidelines. Can be adopted by local ordinance. No impact to Emergency Services. Low Low Noise pollution Can it be piloted? Other Yes, temporary strips are available. Not shown to effectively calm traffic.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Roundabout (Neighborhood traffic circle) Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Details Per NJDOT guidelines & in conjunction with emergency services to ensure turning radii and access for fire trucks. Likely requires NJDOT approval. Requires assessment by Emergency Services based on intersection chosen. High. Low (paint, landscaping, curb maintenance). Removes intersection right angle conflict movements. No.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Chicanes Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Details Follow NJDOT and FHWA guidelines; Must have median island on 2-lane roads for effectiveness. NJDOT review not likely required. Emergency Services have concerns on truck access & operation space. Moderate (depending on landscape & stormwater impact). Low/Moderate (depending on landscaping amount). Loss of parking at several locations. Potential trouble backing out of driveways. Yes, with painted chicanes & temporary bollards.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Road Closure (Bisection of Lenox Avenue) Criteria Details Technical design / installation criteria Signage of roadway change & visibility must meet NJDOT guidelines. Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Other Likely under municipal control but may require county review. No impact to Emergency Services. Low (planters, paint & signage). Low (minimal landscaping for DPW maintenance). Reconfigured neighborhood access. Yes (planters, paint & signage). Additional discussion later in this presentation.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Traffic Signal Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Details Elevated & equivalent traffic flows through all legs of the intersection. Requires NJDOT & county approval. High. Low after initial installation. Controlled exit off of Lenox Ave onto collectors. No.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures One-Way Road Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Details Signage & access per NJDOT & FHWA guidelines. Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Other Likely under municipal control w/o NJDOT review. Low (signage, paint). Low (paint). Remove volume in one direction but potentially increase of volume & speed in direction of the one-way due to lack of opposing traffic flow. Reconfigured neighborhood access. Yes. Additional discussion later in this presentation.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Curb Extensions / Bump Outs Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Details Dimensions per state & federal guidelines. Cannot infringe upon the 2 lanes of traffic. Must factor in stormwater collection impact. Requires vertical indicator. Under municipal control. Emergency Services concern. DPW & Engineering concern. Moderate. Low as long as snow plows don t damage them. Reduction in speed due to tighter turning radii. Yes (paint and temporary bollards).

Standard Traffic Calming Measures Line of Sight Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Other Details In accordance with the 2 South Orange ordinances (1 for structures & 1 for plants). Governed by local ordinance. Responsibility of residents to maintain property per code, otherwise enforcement needed by town. None. None unless resident doesn t manage their plants. Decrease in crashes; potential increase in speed & volume. No. Both Ridgewood & Wyoming recently improved.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures No left turn Criteria Technical design / installation criteria Town/State/Municipal guidelines Cost Maintenance Impact to neighborhood Can it be piloted? Details Effective installation will have physical barrier blocking left turn possibility, but only signage is possible due to Emergency Services access requirements from Ridgewood. Under municipal control. No impact to Emergency Services if no physical barrier. Requires Police enforcement. Low (paint, signage). Low (paint). Minimal, if any. Yes.

FHWA Intersection Safety Enhancements Low-cost Safety Enhancements for Stop-Controlled Inter. Measure Threshold Add l factors Cost range 5 basic sign & marking improvements Flashing beacons on advance intersection warning signs as well as on Stop signs Dynamic warning sign that a stopped vehicle is at the intersection Stop Ahead pavement markings Extension of travel lane using short skip pattern 10 crashes in 5 years None 15-20 crashes in 5 years 20-30 crashes in 5 years 5 running stop sign crashes in 5 years 10 crashes in 5 years None (done at Wyoming already) 5 angle crashes in 5 years & sight distance issues Inadequate stopping sight distance (Wyoming) Wide throat & vehicles stopped too far back $5,000 - $8,000 $5,000 15,000 $10,000 - $25,000 < $1,000 < $1,000 Reflective stripes on sign posts 10 crashes in 5 years Sign visibility degraded < $1,000

Summary: Speed humps/bumps on Lenox between Ridgewood & Wyoming (grade likely exceeds 8%). Speed humps/bumps on Lenox between Walton & Ridgewood. 4-way stop at Ridgewood or Wyoming intersections (volume flows don t allow; significant impact to operation of collector roads). 4-way stop at Lenox Ave/Lenox Pl/Thornden intersection. Road redesign/intersection realignment (private property required; extreme cost). Rumble strips (noise pollution). Roundabout at Ridgewood or Wyoming (Ridgewood space limit; Wyoming county control). Roundabout at Lenox Ave/Lenox Pl/Thornden intersection (high cost; no pilot possible). Chicanes (high cost; maintenance; Emergency Services concerns). Bisection of Lenox Ave. Traffic light (volume flows don t allow). One way road. Curb extensions/bump outs. Line of sight. No left turn (sign only due to Emergency Service access; Police enforcement concern). FHWA enhancements.

Detailed examples: 1. Low-cost safety enhancements package. 2. Change Lenox Ave to one-way (various configurations) 3. 4-way stop signs on Lenox Ave at Lenox Place & Thornden Street 4. Bisect Lenox Avenue between Lenox Place & Thornden Street

MODIFICATION #1: Basic Advance intersection warning sign w/ street name Stop Ahead warning signs MODIFICATION #1: Supplemental Oversize Stop sign Stop bar placement Reflective stripes on sign posts Flashing advance warning sign Flashing stop sign Dynamic warning sign Stop Ahead markings Travel lane short skip lines

MODIFICATION #1 FHWA deployment considerations: Each sub-item has various costs ranging from less than $1,000 up to $25,000. Basic package includes: doubled up overside advance intersection warning signs w/ street name, doubled up oversize advance Stop Ahead warning signs, doubled up oversize Stop signs, verification that stop bars are placed in accordance with FHWA recommendations, & removal of any foliage or parking that limits sight distance. Cost of entire Basic package anticipated between $5,000-$8,000 & has a proven crash reduction factor of 40%. Supplemental items are targeted to intersections with specific types of crashes that the countermeasure can address. Crash reduction factors range from unknown to 15% each. All items are intersection-focused & aim to enable to existing motorists to more-safely traverse the intersections. FHWA document lists 7 supplemental measures, 2 of which are not applicable. The remaining 5 measures would total between $20,000-$52,000. Easiest to install for Ridgewood/Lenox intersection, but can do most for Wyoming/Lenox with coordination with Essex County. Can apply many of these to Ridgewood/Cedar, Walton/Audley, & Walton/Lenox if desired.

MODIFICATION #1 Integrate all applicable FHWA Low-cost Safety Enhancements Studied & proven nationally to reduce crashes. Intersection focused & applicable to locations with inadequate sight distance & skewed angle. 6-10 countermeasures available depending on budget.

MODIFICATION #2 Make a Section of Lenox Avenue One-Way (Three possible configuration examples) N

MODIFICATION #2 One-Way Road considerations: Lowers volume on the designated section of Lenox Avenue. Lowers volume through the related intersection (which one(s) depends on which configuration), thus decreasing potential conflict. Potential increase in volume to the adjacent street(s). Potential speed increase on the one-way section due to the creation of an effectively wider roadway with no oncoming traffic. Within municipality s control; likely doesn t require county or state review.

MODIFICATION #3 4-way stop signs on Lenox Avenue at Lenox Place & Thornden Street EXISTING NEW NEW Mimics existing condition on Cedar Lane at Owen Rd & Lenox Terr. Requires enforcement by police for effectiveness. EXISTING N

MOD. #3 Stop sign additions on Lenox Avenue

MODIFICATION #3 Stop sign deployment considerations: Mimics existing condition on Cedar Lane at Owen Rd & Lenox Terrace. Focuses on potential speeding issue on Lenox Ave between Wyoming & Ridgewood. Requires ongoing enforcement by police department to ensure motorists use Lenox Ave in a safe manner. Can be installed somewhat simply & quickly. Signs & paint go on quick & easy, but curb cuts for crosswalks require additional funding & contracting. Within municipality s control; likely doesn t require county or state review. MUTCD requires higher volume than exists. Interface with technology firms to update their GPS & map data to list Lenox Ave as a localonly street.

MODIFICATION #4 Bisect Lenox Avenue between Lenox Place & Thornden Street Mimics existing condition done every school day. Neighborhood volume/speed data will allow for more thorough review. N

MODIFICATION #4 Bisection pilot Inspiration example

MODIFICATION #5 Deployment considerations: Pilot-only initial deployment to ensure adjacent neighborhood roadways do not bear undue burden on both sides of town border. 12 month pilot to verify across all seasons and usage, though ongoing monitoring & review would occur from the start. Minimize potential short-term volume increase on Lenox Place by scheduling deployment for mid-winter (to protect children who play in Lenox Place street). Can be installed fairly inexpensively using paint, signage & planters. Deployment of electronic signs at adjacent major collectors informing motorists of upcoming traffic pattern change well in advance. Interface with technology firms to update their GPS & map data; both to inform of the roadway change, as well as to ensure Cedar Lane is quantified as a local only street. Reduces volume thru all 3 major intersections by 55%; reducing the crash opportunity risk.

Next steps for the study: Collect & incorporate Thornden crash data. Collect & incorporate extensive volume & speed data throughout neighborhood in collaboration with SOPD & MWPD. Review all public feedback with SOTAC & SOPS committees. Reanalyze all options on the table, & provide an updated recommendation to the committees for their consideration.

Thanks! Sign in at the back table to: Receive the presentation & data set digitally. Volunteer to help coordinate the data collection in Maplewood. Be informed as to when the additional data is planned for discussion at SOTAC.