TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY Introduction Each year staff and councillors receive complaints concerning traffic on residential roadways Members of the community are requesting solutions to traffic concerns in their neighbourhoods such as aggressive driving, speeding, non compliance of traffic controls, and traffic noise by cut-through traffic. One of the solutions that has successfully been used by rth American traffic engineers is traffic calming. Traffic calming is a term most commonly associated with physical features placed on a roadway to influence the speed of motor vehicles, discourage cut-through traffic and improve traffic safety and comfort levels for all users of residential streets. These measures, in turn, are designed to improve the quality of life for area residents. What is Traffic Calming? In 1997, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) defined traffic calming as the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) and the Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers (CITE) published in 1998, the Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming in part to achieve an appropriate level of national standardization of traffic calming measures. This guide provides guidance as opposed to setting standards on the design and installation of traffic calming measures. Overall, the Guide describes 25 different traffic calming measures and classifies them into the following four different groups: Vertical deflections; Horizontal deflections; Obstructions; and Signs. A description of the most common traffic calming measures is provided in Table 1; Tables 2 and 3 provides a brief outline of the key benefits and disbenefits of each traffic calming measure. Impacts of Traffic Calming on Emergency Services and Transit. Physical traffic calming does impact the provision of emergency and transit services. The concerns of emergency services with respect to traffic calming are primarily associated with vertical measures such as speed bumps. Studies that have been conducted over recent years indicate that the delay per speed bump is usually less than 10 seconds per bump. In isolation this time seems fairly short; however the total delay increases when speed bumps are installed in series along a response route. For emergency medical services, once a patient is placed in the back of the vehicle, the ambulance crew may be required to come to a complete stop and ease their wheels over the bumps in order to prevent the patient from being tossed around.
Page 2 Most transit authorities have indicated a concern over the impact of traffic calming devices on their operation. Recently (July 24, 2004), York Regional Council adopted a policy entitled Traffic Calming on Public Transit Routes. Contained in this policy is the responsibility of the local municipality to: tify York Regional Transit at the earliest stage of development of a traffic calming scheme of the intent to introduce traffic calming on a particular road and where concerned, York Regional Transit should be consulted and be allowed to participate in the design of the scheme Ensure that vertical measures are not installed on roads where transit services exist or on roads designated for transit n compliance with the approved policy of Traffic Calming on Public Transit Routes will result in the removal of public transit service from the affected roadway. Natural Environment Impacts of Traffic Calming The physical nature of traffic calming can have an impact on gasoline powered vehicles which in turn impacts the natural environment. Even under ideal operating conditions which are characterized by low average speeds, traffic controlled by traffic calming can result in increased levels of air and sound pollution and possibly increased ground vibrations. Gasoline powered vehicle emissions vary depending on how the vehicle is driven. Low average speeds characterized by frequent vehicle stops and starts and/or frequent accelerations and decelerations within urban centres are known to produce the highest emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. As the average speed increases from low to moderate, engine operation becomes more efficient and less fuel is burned, thereby producing fewer emissions. At much higher speeds (i.e. freeway speeds) much more fuel is consumed and more emissions produced. With respect to noise and vibration, vehicles accelerating and decelerating near speed bumps increase levels of noise pollution as they generate additional engine and exhaust noise as compared with steady travel at reasonable speeds. ise is also generated by tires that thump and undercarriages that sometimes scrape across speed bumps. Even more noise and vibration is generated by trucks crossing speed bumps partly due to their stiffer frame construction but also due to the loads they carry which are prone to shifting. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act as it pertains to Traffic Calming Section 3.3 of the Environmental Assessment Act now excludes traffic calming measures: 3.3 (1) A traffic calming measure is not an undertaking for the purposes of this Act and cannot be included in the definition of a class for the purposes of this Act. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 5.
Proposed Policy for Traffic Calming on Existing Township Roads Page 3 Most requests for traffic calming come from residents and community organizations. Often public opinion is mixed; some people feel that traffic calming improves safety and comfort on their street while others see their features as a nuisance or inconvenience. In some cases, communities may become divided over the installation of traffic calming measures. It is proposed that any requests for traffic calming be assessed against a number of warrant criteria. Because of the extensive costs and implications associated with traffic calming proposals, it is essential that the assessments be undertaken objectively to ensure that traffic calming is implemented under appropriate circumstances, and that streets in greater need of traffic calming receive priority for limited funding. Each request for traffic calming is proposed to be assessed against the following three warrant criteria: Warrant 1 Petition, will ensure that residents in the immediate area are in support of traffic calming measures Warrant 2 Safety Requirements, will ensure traffic calming measures are installed so as to create an increase in traffic safety Warrant 3 Technical Requirement, will ensure that traffic calming measures are implemented on streets that have a proven need for such measures. The traffic calming warrant criteria is detailed in Table 4 and described in the following paragraphs. Warrant 1 of the Traffic Calming Warrant Criteria, Petition, gauges the opinion of the area affected by a proposal, by requiring a petition in support of traffic calming to be signed by at least 70% of the households on the street. This would ensure that limited staff resources are expended on proposals which are supported by the community. It also allows commonly held views of neighbourhood traffic issues to quickly gather support while eliminating requests that are not supported by the community. Warrant 2 and 3 should not be considered until Warrant 1 is satisfied. twithstanding this criteria, all reported safety related issues would be investigated and reported on by staff. Upon satisfying Warrant 1, should the Public Works staff anticipate that the proposed traffic calming measures may create significant traffic impacts on adjacent streets, the review of the traffic calming proposal will be modified to include the proposed street as well as the adjacent impacted streets where traffic is expected to divert.
Warrant 2, Safety Requirements, has three components that aim to ensure key safety requirements are satisfied prior to proceeding with traffic calming. Page 4 The first of the three components, Warrant 2.1, address pedestrian safety. With Warrant 2.1 there should be a continuous sidewalk on at least one side of the street. Sometimes it is not feasible to retrofit sidewalks onto streets that do not have them. Under these circumstances, Warrant 2.1 could be satisfied even though no sidewalks exist. In these cases, should the remaining traffic calming warrants be satisfied and the request recommended for approval, the pedestrian safety issues would be addressed at the design stage of the traffic calming plan. Warrant 2.2 deals with road grades. For safety purposes, traffic calming measures should not be installed on streets with road grades of more than five percent. Setting this limit serves to maintain reasonably safe driving conditions in adverse weather for motorists negotiating the calming measures. Warrant 2.3 require that there not be any significant impacts to emergency services as a result of the traffic calming measures being implemented. This determination will be made by consulting with emergency services staff early in the review period. Should the traffic calming plans change after they have been reviewed, emergency services staff will be given an opportunity to again review the new plan and to submit further comments. Warrant 3, Technical Requirements, evaluates whether the traffic conditions on a street being considered for traffic calming meet thresholds that require remediation. Warrant 3.1 requires that the street s 85 th percentile speed be a minimum of 10 km/hr to 15 km/hr above the posted speed limit in combination with the traffic volume on a local residential street between 500 and 8000 vehicles per day or on a residential collector street between 1500 and 8000 vehicles per day. However, if the 85 th percentile speed is 15 km/hr or more above the speed limit on the street, then there is no minimum volume requirement. This is because the degree of the traffic problem and the potential safety risks can be severe. Warrant 3.2 ensures that the traffic volume on streets being considered for traffic calming is generally consistent with the range of values for respective classes of road in King Township (local and collector). Usually there should be a minimum of 500 vehicles per day on local roads and 1500 vehicles per day on collector roads for this warrant to be satisfied. A maximum volume of 8000 vehicles per day is used for traffic calming because the overall benefits of traffic calming are outweighed by the disbenefits when dealing with these higher volumes. Warrant 3.3 addresses minimum block length. On streets where mid block traffic calming measures are proposed, the block length must exceed 120 metres. However, consideration would be given to those streets where the block length is less than 120 metres if, in the opinion of Township s Public Works staff, traffic calming measures can be safely implemented.
Warrant 3.4 requires that there be no significant impacts to transit services as a result of the traffic calming measures being proposed. This determination will be made by consulting with York Regional Transit (YRT) staff early in the request process. Should traffic calming plans change after they have been reviewed by YRT staff, they will be again given an opportunity to review the new plan and to submit further comments. Page 5 If all the traffic calming warrant criteria are met, a detailed plan can be developed and recommended for installation, pending a poll showing support by affected residents. In this regard, the traffic calming measures as outlined in Table 1 can be used as a toolbox to determine the most appropriate physical traffic calming measure (or measures) for implementation. Once the analysis and evaluation of all the alternatives have been carried out, a preferred solution will be chosen. Other Alternatives To comply with the minimum requirements of the Class EA process, there must be an identification of a reasonable range of alternative solutions to the problem, including the Do thing alternative. As well, early in the review of a request for traffic calming alternatives other measures for traffic calming should be considered (such as public education, police enforcement, signing and turn restrictions) and evaluated. The Proposed Process for Installing Traffic Calming Measures The proposed process for installing traffic calming measures is outlined in Figure 1. The process developed follows the steps outlined in the Proposed Policy for Traffic Calming section. If a traffic calming request does not meet the requirements of any of the warrants and the Ward Councillor wishes the study to continue, staff will report on the status of the project to that point requesting direction on whether to proceed further. S:\W04237\LR-jg-King Township Traffic Calming Policy-19aug04.doc
TABLE 1. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES Measure Chicane Curb Extension Curb Radius Reduction Directional Closure Diverter Full Closure Intersection Channelization On-Street Parking Raised Crosswalk Raised Intersection Raised Median Island Raised Median Through Intersection Rightin/Right-out Island Rumble Strip Sidewalk Extension Speed Hump Textured Crosswalk Traffic Circle Description A series of curb extensions on alternating sides of a roadway, which narrow the roadway and require drivers to steer from one side of the roadway to the other to travel through the chicane. Typically, a series of at least three curb extensions is used. A horizontal intrusion of the curb into the roadway resulting in a narrower section of roadway. The reconstruction of an intersection corner using a smaller radius, usually in the 3.0 m to 5.0 m range. A curb extension or vertical barrier extending to approximately the centerline of a roadway, effectively obstructing (prohibition) one direction of traffic. A raised barrier placed diagonally across an intersection that forces traffic to turn and prevents traffic from proceeding straight through the intersection. A barrier extending across the entire width of a roadway, which obstructs all motor vehicle traffic movements from continuing along the roadway. Raised islands located in an intersection, used to obstruct specific traffic movements and physically direct traffic through an intersection. The reduction of the roadway width available for vehicle movement by allowing motor vehicles to park adjacent and parallel to the curb. A marked pedestrian crosswalk at an intersection or mid-block location constructed at a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway. An intersection including crosswalks constructed at a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway. An elevated median constructed on the centreline of a two-way roadway to reduce the overall width of the adjacent travel lanes. An elevated median located on the centreline of a two-way roadway through an intersection, which prevents left turns and through movements to and from the intersecting roadway. A raised triangular island at an intersection approach which obstructs left turns and through movements to and from the intersection street or driveway. Raised buttons, bars or grooves closely spaced at regular intervals on the roadway that create both noise and vibration in a moving vehicles. A sidewalk is continued across a local street intersection. For a raised sidewalk extension, it is continued at its original elevation, with the local roadway raised to the level of the sidewalk at the intersection. For an unraised sidewalk extension, it is continued at its original elevation, with the local roadway raised to the level of the sidewalk at the intersection. For an unraised sidewalk extension, the sidewalk is lowered to the level of the roadway. A raised area of a roadway, which deflects both the wheels and frame of a traversing vehicle. A crosswalk incorporating a textured and/or patterned surface which contrasts with the adjacent roadway. A raised island located in the centre of an intersection, which requires vehicles to travel through the intersection in a counter-clockwise direction around the island. SOURCE: CANADIAN GUIDE TO NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING, TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Vertical Deflection Horizontal Deflection Obstruction Signing* TABLE 2: APPLICABILITY OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES POTENTIAL BENEFITS Measure Speed Reduction Volume Reduction Conflict Reduction Raised crosswalk Raised intersection Rumble strip Sidewalk extension Speed hump Textured crosswalk Chicane one-lane Chicane two-lane Curb extension Curb radius reduction On-street parking Raised median island Traffic circle Directional closure Diverter Full closure Intersection channelization Raised median through intersection Right-in/right-out island Maximum Speed Right (Left) Turn Prohibited One-Way Stop Through Traffic Prohibited Traffic-Calmed Neighbourhood Yield Environment = Substantial benefits = Minor benefits = benefit * The primary purpose of signing is to regulate traffic movements, not to calm traffic. SOURCE: CANADIAN GUIDE TO NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING, TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Vertical Deflection Horizontal Deflection TABLE 3: IMPLICATIONS OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES POTENTIAL DISBENEFITS Other Emplace- Measure Local Emergency Enforcemennance Mainte- Travel ment Access Response Modes Cost Raised crosswalk $ to $$ Raised intersection $$$ Rumble strip $ to $$ Sidewalk extension $$ Speed hump $ to $$ Textured crosswalk $ to $$ Chicane one-lane $$ to $$$ Chicane two-lane $$ Curb extension $ to $$ Curb radius reduction $ to $$ On-street parking $ to $$ Raised median island $ to $$ Traffic circle $$ to $$$ Obstruction Directional closure $$ Diverter $$ to $$$ Full closure $$ to $$$ Intersection channelization $$ to $$$ Raised median through $ to $$ intersection Right-in/right-out island $$ Signing Maximum Speed $ Right (Left) Turn Prohibited $ One-Way $ Stop $ Through Traffic Prohibited $ Traffic-Calmed Neighbourhood $ Yield $ = Substantial disbenefits = Moderate disbenefits = disbenefits $ = Low cost $$ = Moderate cost $$$ = High cost SOURCE: CANADIAN GUIDE TO NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING, TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
TABLE 4: TRAFFIC CALMING WARRANT CRITERIA WARRANT CRITERIA Requirement Warrant 1 1.1 A petition requesting implementation of traffic calming measures must Petition Petition be signed by at least 70% of households on the street. Warrant #2 and #3 will not be considered until Warrant #1 is satisfied. Impacts to Adjacent Streets Warrant 2 Safety Requirements 2.1 Sidewalks Should the Public Works Department anticipate that the proposed traffic calming measures will have significant traffic impacts on adjacent streets, the review of the traffic calming proposal shall be modified to include the proposed street as well as adjacent streets where traffic is expected to divert. On streets where traffic calming is proposed there must be a continuous sidewalk on at least one side of the street. OR (All three criteria must be fulfilled to satisfy this Warrant) Warrant 3 Technical Requirements (All four criteria must be fulfilled to satisfy this Warrant) 2.2 Road Grade 2.3 Emergency Response 3.1 Minimum Speed 3.2 Minimum and Maximum Traffic Volume 3.3 Minimum Block Length 3.4 Transit Services On streets where there are no sidewalks, the installation of a sidewalk on at least one side of the street must have first been considered. Traffic calming measures should not be implemented at or near locations where the road grade exceeds + or 5%. Considerations could be given to those street + or 5% if traffic calming measures can safely be installed as determined by the Public Works Department. On streets where traffic calming is proposed, impacts on Emergency Services will not be significant (as determined in consultation with Emergency Services (Fire, Ambulance, and Police) staff). On streets where traffic calming is proposed, the 85 th percentile speed over a 7-day period must be a minimum of 10km/hr (but less than 15km/hr) over the posted speed limit, and the traffic volume requirements of Warrant 3.2 must be fulfilled. OR On streets where the 85 th percentile speed over a 7-day period exceeds the posted speed limit by a minimum of 15km/hr there is no minimum volume required in Warrant 3.2. Local Roads For streets where traffic calming is proposed, the traffic volume must be between 500 vehicles per day and 8,000 vehicles per day. Collector Roads For streets where traffic calming is proposed, the traffic volume must be between 1,500 vehicles per day and 8,000 vehicles per day. On streets where mid-block traffic calming measures are proposed, the block length must exceed 120 meters. Consideration could be given to those streets where the block length is less than 120 meters if traffic calming measures can safely be implemented as determined by the Public Works Department. On streets where traffic calming is proposed, impacts on regular scheduled transit services will not be significant (as determined in consultation with Transit staff).
FIGURE 1: TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS FLOW CHART Satisfies Warrant 1 (a) Traffic Operations Review for diversion impacts (b) Significant Diversion Impacts (b) Safety Review (c, d) Satisfies Warrant 2 Technical Requirements Reviews (f, g, h) Satisfies Warrant 3 Develop design and rank project (j) Report whether to proceed or not Approved to continue Define Area of Study (b) Report whether to proceed or not Approved to continue Report whether to proceed or not Approved to continue Proceed Proceed Proceed Letter to proponent (a) Report to Council If the Director of Public Works determines that there may be significant diversion onto adjacent streets then the following must occur: 1. The boundaries of the affected area must be identified; 2. The residents of the identified area must be notified; 3. The process will continue on the initiating street but data will also be collected on the streets within the new boundary and there will be a detailed study on these streets to identify appropriate traffic calming measures; 4. Residents on the new streets identified will also be informed that traffic calming may be implemented concurrently within the original street (pending a successful poll) or subsequent to the original installation (assuming there is a successful poll for the original request; 5. If residents wish to wait for a subsequent installation then the request (again based on a subsequent poll) will be placed at the top of the list of requests. Letter to proponent (e) Report to Council Letter to proponent Report to Council Update to proponent (opportunity for input to design) (k) Staff report to authorize poll and road alteration bylaw including notification to the public and relevant agencies per Municipal Class EA process (l) Council Support (l) Poll and 4 weeks advertising (m) Staff Report on Poll Results (n) Council (Deputations) Support (o) tice of completion per Municipal EA - 30 days allowed for comments and input (p) request for Part II Order (q) Work is Scheduled for construction Request for Part II Order Letter back to proponent (l) Public Deputation (n) Letter back to proponent (o) Letter back to proponent (n) Requires review by the M.O.E. The Ministry may: deny the request; deny the request with conditions (such as requiring that a Schedule C process by completed or that monitoring and reporting processes by implemented); refer the matter to mediation; or require the proponent to comply with Part II of the EA Act (including a government review and public hearing). (r) Proceed to (k)