HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-13-106 - Traffic Calming Policy
REPORT TO:Special Council
DATE OF MEETING:
November 25, 2013
SUBMITTED BY: Justin Readman, Director of Transportation Services
PREPARED BY:
Barry Cronkite, Transportation Planning Project Manager
(519-741-2200 ext. 7738)
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
ALL WARDS
DATE OF REPORT:
October 30, 2013
REPORT NO:
INS-13-106
SUBJECT:
Traffic Calming Policy
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the existing Traffic Calming Policy I-1235 dated August 30, 2004 be repealed; and
further,
That the attached Traffic Calming Policy be adopted.
BACKGROUND:
Traffic calming is the use of a variety of traffic management techniques to reduce the overall
impacts of traffic on neighbourhood streets, communities and other public facilities such as
parks and schools. While traffic calming has historically been viewed as a means to control
inappropriate speed and volume, when used effectively it also improves neighbourhood
liveability and increases road user safety.
The existing City of Kitchener Traffic Calming Policy (attached Appendix A) was adopted by
Council in August 2004 (DTS 04-125). This policy was developed to provide a fair and
consistent review of streets and communities, while defining and prioritizing the individual
streets that are most in need of traffic calming, from a traffic safety perspective.
The types of traffic calming measures used depend greatly on the specific issues being
addressed and the function of the roadway. Typically, the installation of traffic calming
measures along a roadway includes a combination of the following:
Changes to the vertical and/or horizontal alignment of the roadway
Changes to roadway surface and/or texture
Changes to roadway regulations
Changes in visual cues along the roadway
3 - 1
Since 2004, a total of 32 traffic calming reviews have been initiated. As a result of those
reviews, many measures have been successfully installed. A list of measures (note: definitions
of traffic calming measures are attached in Appendix A, table 1) that have been installed along
roadways reviewed since the 2004 inception of the formal traffic calming policy is as follows:
Greenbrook Drive – 9 speed humps and 1 curb extension
David Street/Schneider Avenue – partial closure of Schneider Avenue at Queen St
Kingswood Drive – 6 speed humps, 2 raised crosswalks and 1 all-way stop control
Chopin Drive – 1 raised crosswalk
Bradley Drive – 2 speed humps and 1 raised crosswalk
Homewood Avenue – 3 speed humps
Vanier Drive – 6 speed humps
Traynor Avenue – 5 speed humps
Kinzie Avenue – 4 speed humps
Old Carriage Drive – 4 speed humps and 1 raised crosswalk on Pioneer Drive
Clark Avenue – 4 speed humps
Heritage Drive – 8 speed humps
Onward Avenue – 3 speed humps
Pioneer Drive/Bechtel Drive – 2 speed cushions, 5 speed humps and 2 raised
crosswalks
Laurentian Drive – 5 speed humps and 2 raised crosswalks
Morgan Avenue – 5 speed humps and 2 raised crosswalks
Upper Canada Drive – 2 speed humps, 1 seasonal speed hump and 1 raised crosswalk
Dixon Street – 3 speed humps, 1 raised crosswalk and 1 curb extension
Rolling Meadows Drive – 1 raised crosswalk
Carwood Avenue – 2 speed humps and 1 median
Chandler Drive – 2 speed humps, 1 raised crosswalk and 1 curb extension
Since 2004, vertical measures have been the predominant form of traffic calming used, with 80
speed humps and 12 raised crosswalks having been installed. Vertical measures have been
used as the primary form of traffic calming due to their success in effectively reducing speeds
and traffic volume, while having minimal residential impact.
In addition to the traffic calmed areas listed above, a number of traffic calming reviews have
been completed and approved by Council, which are currently scheduled for installation as
follows:
Glasgow Street – 2 chicanes and 2 medians
Williamsburg Road – 3 speed humps and 1 raised crosswalk
Sydney Street – 3 speed humps (installed) and 1 raised crosswalk
Highview Drive - 2 speed humps/cushions, 1 raised crosswalk, 1 intersection narrowing,
an all-way stop, parking restrictions and pavement markings
Yellowbirch Avenue - 2 speed humps/cushions, 1 raised crosswalk and parking
restrictions
Siebert Avenue – 1 speed hump and 1 raised crosswalk
Woodhaven Road – 1 speed hump and 1 curb extension
Harber Avenue – 1 speed hump
Country Hill Drive – 3 speed humps and 2 raised crosswalks
Morrison Road - 3 speed humps/cushions, 2 raised crosswalks and new sidewalk
3 - 2
Consolidating the information above, another 12 speed humps, 7 cushions/humps and 9 raised
crosswalks have been approved and will be installed as part of the existing traffic calming policy
and process. Transportation Services is also formally conducting an additional 6 reviews that
are all at various stages through the traffic calming process on the following streets:
The neighbourhood bound by Connaught Street, Wilson Avenue, Franklin Street South a
Traynor Avenue
Guelph Street
Heiman Street
Pioneer Drive
Franklin Street North
Trussler Road
The City of Kitchener’s Integrated Transportation Master Plan (TMP), formally adopted by
Council in June 2013, recommended a review of the City’s traffic calming policy. The TMP
identified that with widespread implementation of traffic calming and the development of traffic
calming policies in municipalities nationwide, there is an ideal opportunity to review lessons
learned and best practices throughout the industry that could further enhance the City of
Kitchener’s policy and form the foundation for traffic calming in years to come.
Specifically, the TMP recommends a review of the following:
The traffic calming review process extending from a request for traffic calming through to
study and design completion
Confirmation of warrants required to initiate traffic calming studies
The type of traffic calming measures that will be considered for use in the City of
Kitchener and where they can be used.
REPORT
The primary intent of traffic calming is to reduce vehicle speeds, deter non-residential through
traffic from local neighbourhoods and reduce the incidence of collisions, thereby increasing the
safety of all users within the defined right of way. When overall road user safety is improved,
sustainable modes of transportation (walking, cycling and transit use) are encouraged, thereby
creating a more “liveable” street.
Requests for traffic calming typically come from residents or councillors. Identification of
potential locations may also come from on-going staff reviews. Transportation Services staff is
ultimately responsible for the review of all requests and informing the applicant of the traffic
calming process.
The existing City of Kitchener Traffic Calming Policy was adopted by Council in August 2004.
The policy was developed to replace the previous traffic calming policy (I-784) with one that
would provide a fair and consistent review of streets and communities, while defining and
prioritizing the individual streets that are most in need of traffic calming, from a traffic safety
perspective.
3 - 3
The existing and proposed traffic calming policies have been designed to be applied to local
roads and collectors only. The decision to limit the application of the traffic calming policy is
based on the function of higher order arterials to move large volumes of people and goods
throughout the City of Kitchener and beyond. Additionally, measures undertaken on arterials are
likely to shift traffic onto lower-order roads and thereby into residential neighbourhoods which is
counter intuitive to the overall mandate of traffic calming.
1.0 Proposed Revisions to Traffic Calming Policy
In order to update our Traffic Calming policy, the following revisions are recommended.
1.1 Establishment of Reviews
Existing
As previously noted, requests for traffic calming typically come from residents and/or
councillors. Ultimately a “single voice” of concern can facilitate a roadway being reviewed for
traffic calming.
Though the existing policy establishes an evaluation criterion, it did not distinguish a formal “cut
off” or justification for roadways to be considered for traffic calming and as a result, there are
now over 170 roadways on the traffic calming priority list (the 2013 Traffic Calming Priority List,
based on the 2004 policy, is attached Appendix B). The priority list continues to grow as
requests are received at a rate faster than the reviews are conducted.
Transportation Services does use a 30 point benchmark (as determined by the evaluation
criteria established in the existing policy) to determine if roadways are warranted for the
consideration of traffic calming. The 30 point cut-off is somewhat arbitrary and point totals can
fluctuate on an annual basis, however, it does identify that not all roadways requested should
necessarily qualify for traffic calming.
Proposed
It is evident, based on the current priority list that a minimum warrant for the consideration of
th
traffic calming needs to be established. In review of policies of other municipalities, an 85
percentile speed of 55 km/h and a minimum vehicular volume of 1000 vehicles per day was a
common threshold for the warrant of consideration of traffic calming. These cut off values
recognize that there should be an identified minimum requirement of speed and volume to
identify a concern that is correctable by traffic calming. Additionally, Transportation Services
th
recommends that an identified roadway with an 85 percentile of 65 km/h or greater also be
warranted for the consideration of traffic calming. Such high rates of speed can pose serious
traffic safety concerns, regardless of volume.
The inclusion of the above stated factors would result in a list of 47 roadways (from over 170
existing) that would qualify for traffic calming as indicated in appendix C (Appendix D contains
roadways that would no longer meet minimum requirements). Although the Priority list will
undoubtedly fluctuate, at this time it would take approximately 12 years to facilitate reviews for
all roadways that warrant traffic calming.
3 - 4
1.2 Traffic Calming Evaluation Criteria
Existing
Detailed evaluation criteria were established and included as part of the existing traffic calming
policy in an effort to provide a fair and consistent review of traffic calming requests, and to
prioritize streets based on traffic safety and neighbourhood impacts.
The evaluation criteria (Appendix A, Table 2), is a good tool for comparison even though it
presents a number of challenges when trying to apply a consistent quantifiable approach. One
criterion identified is “community support” and represents one fifth of the overall weighting.
However, since the adoption of the existing policy, this criterion has never been utilized as part
of the overall evaluation and prioritization process as it was determined that the prioritization of
roadways should be limited to actual conditions on the roadway and not influenced by
community input. Community input is essential once the review has been initiated and is
incorporated throughout the process, including a final resident survey on the recommended
plan.
Additionally, traffic safety concerns are traditionally related to excessive speed and/or volume in
some manner, yet the existing evaluation criteria are given equal weighting in 5 categories;
community support, speed, volume, collisions and safety. This approach does not typically
reflect the root of the initial concern.
Finally, the actual weighting and assignment of points based on the evaluation criteria uses a
qualitative approach, ranking categories on a relative scale based on roadways from highest to
lowest severity. Qualitative approaches can be perceived to lack transparency and overall
consistency without the enforcement of rigorous methods on a consistent basis.
Proposed
A detailed quantitative evaluation criteria is required to provide a fair and consistent review of
traffic calming requests, and to prioritize streets based on traffic safety and neighbourhood
impact.
The proposed revisions to the evaluation criteria (Appendix E, Table 1) have shifted the main
focus of prioritization to speed and volume. As traffic safety concerns are traditionally related to
excessive speed and/or volume in some manner, applying a heavier weight to speed and
volume factors allows for a clearer representation of the primary concern and allows for
measures to be installed appropriately, based on intended use and design.
The updated policy has removed the connection to transit and emergency services from the
weighting system entirely. By removing emergency services and transit it is recognized that
emergency services and transit should not be a factor of whether traffic calming is warranted
and how roadways are ranked, but rather a determination of potential measures that are
installed along these roadways.
3 - 5
1.3 Vertical Measures
Existing
As illustrated through the summary of past reviews, there are over 100 vertical deflection
measures throughout the City, and based on the existing policy, it is anticipated that this number
will continue to increase. In the past, vertical measures have been installed on identified
emergency response and transit routes if considered appropriate through the traffic calming
review. It is acknowledged that vertical traffic calming measures can impact emergency
response and transit service times.
The City of Kitchener Fire Services Department has consistently voiced their concerns at
Committee and Council when discussing individual traffic calming reviews. Grand River Transit
presented a report to Regional Planning, Housing and Community Services Committee on June
th
18 2013 (File Code: D09-40(A), attached Appendix F), which outlines in detail the impact of
vertical measures on transit, and recommended the cities within the Region use alternative
measures to speed humps.
It should be noted that studies conducted throughout the industry indicate that the delay per
speed hump is usually slightly less than 10 seconds per hump. In isolation this time seems fairly
short; however in most cases, vertical measures are installed in series, and the total delay on a
street can vary greatly depending on the number of vertical measures installed. It is
acknowledged that our current process should be revised to support emergency services and
transit with respect to their service levels.
Proposed
It is proposed that traffic calming still be considered on roads that serve as transit routes or
emergency routes. However, it is recognized that vertical traffic calming measures such as
speed humps increase emergency vehicle response times, create uncomfortable rides for
transit passengers and potentially increase the maintenance required to keep these vehicles
operational. It is recommended that on identified emergency service routes and bus routes with
a minimum of 2 buses per hour, traffic calming devices will be limited to horizontal measures
and signing only, unless written consent from the affected agency/agencies is provided.
1.4 Resident Circulation
Existing
Within the existing framework of the policy and through typical practice, staff survey residents
that have direct frontage along the roadway(s) under review numerous times throughout the
traffic calming process to determine the level of support for traffic calming. The information
gathered throughout these surveys is used to formulate recommendations to Committee and
Council regarding the formal traffic calming review.
One of the concerns commonly identified when conducting a review is that surveys only capture
those who directly front the roadway under review. This has been raised as a concern for side
street residents who have no other choice but to use that roadway, who generally feel that they
are equally impacted and should be given the same voice and opportunity in the decision
making process.
3 - 6
Proposed
Through a comprehensive review of other municipalities, it is clear that a survey to determine
support for potential traffic calming measures is common practice, and a necessary tool to
ensure resident support. The approach taken by other municipalities to identify the boundary of
which the survey is circulated is split between the directly affected residents of the roadway
under review (current city of Kitchener practice) and the affected neighbourhood.
While the neighbourhood as a whole can be inconvenienced with the inclusion of traffic calming,
ultimately, those residents that reside directly on a roadway under review are the most directly
impacted from speeds and/or volumes that can impact traffic safety. Transportation Services
maintains that the residents that are directly fronting the roadway under review should be
responsible for the installation of traffic calming. This is based on the fact that residents living
on the roadway(s) being reviewed have a more direct impact due to required driveway
access/egress, traffic noise, as well as general safety for residents, including children, that may
be active in the front yard portion of their homes.
However, in order to be as inclusive as possible, Transportation Services is recommending that
we also survey all residents that are required to use the street under review as their primary
access. While this additional information will not be used to form a technical decision regarding
traffic calming, these additional survey results will be included in all traffic calming reports so
that Council is aware of all opinions related to traffic calming within the affected neighbourhood.
This will then afford Council the opportunity to balance the desires of the neighbourhood with
the technical recommendations of Transportation Services.
1.5 Connection to the Cycling Master Plan
The City of Kitchener’s Cycling Master Plan was approved in August 2010, and identifies a
network of cycling infrastructure. Where possible, traffic calming should be used as a tool to
assist in the provision of cycling infrastructure and the planning of bicycle friendly communities,
including roadways that are not otherwise identified within the Cycling Master Plan.
The City of Kitchener’s Transportation Demand Management Coordinator will be a member of
the project team that is responsible for the development and evaluation of alternatives to ensure
that any potential connections to cycling infrastructure is made through the traffic calming
process in a “complete streets” approach.
2.0 Agency Input on Proposed Policy
All directly affected agencies were circulated the proposed update to the traffic calming policy.
While most agencies, including Fire, indicated that they have no concerns at this point with the
proposed policy, Grand River Transit provided the following in response to the proposed policy:
The Region of Waterloo has reviewed the traffic calming policy in regards to transit services and
thanks the City for the opportunity to be involved in this review process. While our
recommendation would be to have no vertical calming on streets with bus routes, the limitations
that have been added based on frequency of transit service is an appreciative move forward.
3 - 7
The overall goal should be to look towards a complete street design that facilitates walking,
cycling, access to transit, travel by transit and accessibility of the neighbourhood. Traffic calming
measures used to reduce speed and through traffic generally address a limited number of
elements of improving the quality of life in a neighbourhood.
It is noted that the decisions will be made based on the frequency of the buses “at the
commencement of the review”. Unfortunately this does not allow for the impact on future
transit service and a clause should be included related to planned transit service. The
Region has developed network redesign plans showing streets planned for use in 2017.
These have been identified in the Grand River Transit Business Plan and the Regional
Transportation Master Plan. Staff are currently completing a list identifying future routes
that would be affected by the currently identified list of streets requested for traffic
calming and this can be shared with City staff.
The policy does not address the issue of streets that currently have transit service and
that have vertical calming measures installed on them. While in some places, looking to
change the calming measures as part of a street reconstruction project may be practical,
this is not an acceptable approach for streets that may not be slated for reconstruction
for a long time, possibly decades in the future. Additional policy should be included on
how these streets can be reviewed and have changes made sooner. A complete streets
design program may help facilitate this approach.
In order to address concerns indicated by transit regarding future transit services along
roadways identified for traffic calming, Transportation Services will continue to circulate GRT
and discuss any and all traffic calming initiatives well in advance of the selection of any traffic
calming alternatives. Staff recognize that the Region anticipates system wide changes to the
provision of transit and the process will take into account these anticipated changes.
It is appreciated that Grand River Transit has concern with the vertical measures already in
place on their routes. The intent of updating the traffic calming policy isn’t to address measures
that are already installed, but rather to move forward with a policy that can address their
concerns adequately in the future. It should also be noted that roadways which receive traffic
calming are reviewed one year following the installation of measures. In all instances, support
for the measures post installation has increased. We will continue to review measures at the
time of reconstruction of a roadway, but do not foresee creating a tool with which to remove
existing measures at this time.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This initiative falls under the Community Priority of Quality of Life. “Work with partners, including
all orders of government, to create a culture of safety in our community.”
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Traffic calming currently receives approximately $220,000.00 annually to conduct 4 reviews and
install the corresponding measures. It is anticipated that the annual budget remain consistent,
assuming that 4 reviews are still conducted annually.
3 - 8
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Traffic calming reviews involve extensive public involvement and communication. Procedural
changes in the way residents are surveyed will ensure that a greater portion of the surrounding
neighbourhood is engaged in each review.
CONCLUSION:
Proposed changes to the policy have been recommended to address concerns that have been
raised through previous reviews and to provide more emphasis on a variety of traffic calming
tools and alternatives. Transportation throughout the Region is continuing to evolve and the
new policy should allow the City of Kitchener to move forward with a new traffic calming
program that achieves the intended traffic management objectives.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO
Infrastructure Services Department
Attach.
Appendix A – Traffic Calming Policy (Existing)
Appendix B – Existing Traffic Calming Priority List
Appendix C – Tentative Traffic Calming Priority List as a result of new policy
Appendix D – Roadways that would no longer qualify for Traffic Calming
Appendix E – Traffic Calming Policy (Proposed)
Appendix F – Grant River Transit File Code: D09-40(A)
3 - 9
Appendix A
Traffic Calming Policy
Aug 16, 2004
The City of Kitchener endorses traffic calming as a means to reduce speeding, through
traffic and collisions in residential neighbourhoods thereby improving safety and quality
of life for the residents. The following outlines the basic premise of the traffic calming
policy.
1. Traffic calming measures will be considered primarily on local and minor collector
roads.
2. Vertical traffic calming measures will not be considered on emergency routes, transit
routes or major collector roads.
3. Traffic calming measures that will be considered include those outlined in Table 1,
the appropriateness of which are based on the road classification.
4. Capital funds in the amount of $100,000 annually will be allocated to the Capital
Budget for traffic calming studies and measures.
5. A survey indicating 25% resident support of a traffic calming review must be obtained
before a traffic calming study will be commenced.
6. A Schedule B Environmental Assessment will be completed for every installation or
removal of a traffic calming measure.
7. Once the EA is completed, a minimum of 50% of the affected residents must
respond and 60% support the recommended plan for it to proceed.
8. Traffic calming projects will be rated and prioritized annually based on the criteria
outlined in Table 2.
9. Developers will be encouraged to incorporate traffic calming measures in new plans
of subdivision.
3 - 10
Appendix A
Table 1
Appropriate Traffic Calming Measures
Based on Road Classification
APPROPRIATE
FOR
MEASURE DESCRIPTION
CHICANE
A series of curb extensions on alternating sides of X X
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 curb extensions is used.
CURB EXTENSION
A horizontal intrusion of the curb into the roadway X X X
resulting in a narrower section of the roadway
CURB RADIUS The reconstruction of an intersection corner using X X
REDUCTION
a smaller radius, usually in the 3.0 m to 5.0 m
range.
DIRECTIONAL
A curb extension or vertical barrier extending to X
CLOSURE approximately the centerline of a roadway,
effectively obstructing (prohibiting) one direction
of traffic.
DIVERTER
A raised barrier placed diagonally across an X
intersection, that forces traffic to turn and prevents
traffic from proceeding straight through the
intersection.
FULL CLOSURE
A barrier extending across the entire width of a X
roadway, which obstructs all motor vehicle traffic
movements from continuing along the roadway
INTERSECTION
Raised islands located at an intersection, used to X
CHANNELIZATION obstruct specific traffic movements and physically
direct traffic through an intersection
ON-STREET
The reduction of the roadway width available for X X X
PARKING
vehicle movement by allowing motor vehicles to
park adjacent and parallel to the curb.
RAISED A marked pedestrian crosswalk at an intersection X X
CROSSWALK
or mid-block location constructed at a higher
elevation than the adjacent roadway
RAISED
An intersection - including sidewalks - constructed X X
INTERSECTION
at a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway.
RAISED MEDIAN
An elevated median constructed on the centerline X X X
ISLAND of a two-way roadway to reduce the overall width
of the adjacent travel lines
3 - 11
Appendix A
RAISED MEDIAN
A elevated median located on the centerline of a X
THROUGH
two-way roadway through an intersection, which
INTERSECTION
prevents left turns and through movements to and
from the intersecting roadway.
RIGHT-IN/RIGHT A triangular island at an intersection approach X X X
OUT ISLAND
which obstructs left turns and through movements
to and from the intersection street or driveway.
RUMBLE STRIP
Raised buttons, bars or grooves closely spaced at
regular intervals on the roadway that create both
noise and vibration in a moving vehicle.
SIDEWALK
A sidewalk is continued across a local X X
EXTENSION
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 a "unraised" sidewalk extension,
the sidewalk is lowered to the level of the
roadway.
SPEED HUMP
A raised area of a roadway, which deflects both X X
the wheels and frame from a traversing vehicle.
TEXTURED
A crosswalk incorporating a textured and/or X X
CROSSWALK
patterned surface which contrasts with the
adjacent roadway.
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
A raised island located in the centre of an X X X
intersection, which requires vehicles to travel
through the intersection in a counter-clockwise
direction around the island.
3 - 12
Appendix A
Evaluation Criteria
The traffic calming criteria has been based on the premise that 25% of the residents
support a traffic calming review through the submission of a petition before the
remainder of the supporting information is collected. This will prevent frivolous requests
that are not supported by the remainder of the neighbourhood from consuming
resources.
Table 2
Traffic Calming Criteria
Criteria Measurement Scale Rating
CommunityPercentage of households 0 to 20 20 represents area with highest
Supportsupporting requested action level of support – min 25%
Speed 24 hour 85 % speeds in both 0 to 20 20 represents area with highest
directions – when compared recorded speed differentials
to the expected speed based and greatest number of streets
on the road classification with speeding
Volume Percentage short cutting 0 to 20 20 represents area with highest
traffic in peak 2 hour period volume of short cutting and
in peak direction min 25% highest daily traffic volume
and daily traffic volume.relative to road classification
Collisions Collision rate and severity of 0 to 20 20 represents area with highest
reported collisions in 3 years number and severity of
at most significant location collisions
Safety Sidewalks – proportion of 0 to 5 5 represents area with fewest
neighbourhood streets with sidewalks
continuous sidewalks on at
least one side
Pedestrians & Cyclists – 0 to 5 5 represents area with highest
number of schools and major pedestrian generators and
pedestrian generators in bicycle routes.
area, presence of
designated bike routes in the
area
Emergency and Transit 0 to 10 10 represents area with the
routes – proximity of fewest emergency and transit
emergency and transit routes that would be affected
routes in the area
3 - 13
AppendixB
2013TrafficCalmingPriorityListing
3 - 14
3 - 15
3 - 16
3 - 17
3 - 18
AppendixC
TentativeTrafficCalmingPriorityList
3 - 19
Appendix D
RoadwaysThatWouldnoLongerWarrantTrafficCalming
Recorded
StreetSpeed LimitVolume
85% Speed
Mill St (Queen to Stirling)50607,906
Pioneer Tower Road (Marquette to Pioneer Ridge)50601,514
Hoffman St (Highland Rd & Ottawa St)50521,812
Oprington Dr50521,732
Bridlewreath St (Activa & Max Becker)50541,341
Halliwell Drive5059776
Hickson Dr (Ottawa to River)5055919
Aberdeen Road50531,239
Lancaster Street East (Victoria St to Weber St)50547,170
Fifth Ave (Wilson - Kingsway)5056696
Dumfries Ave (Stirling & Krug)5055843
Misty Street50521,308
Park Street (Dominion to Jubilee)50537,276
Apple Ridge Drive 50542,780
Sherwood Ave (Rosemont St & Becker St)5055616
Royal Orchard Drive 50541,179
Gatewood Road5061542
Isaiah Dr50491,322
Indian Road40481,308
Shanley St50491,285
Ross Ave5056830
Activa Ave (F-H to David Bergey)50543,583
Woolwich Street (Bridge to City Limit) 50502,252
Doon Village Road (Tilt-Doon South)5053935
Prospect Ave (Franklin St & Wilfred Ave)5053740
Huber Street 50511,035
Blueridge Avenue50511,230
Woodsmere Drive 5056148
Isaiah Drive50501,065
Activa Ave (David B to Lemonbalm/Max B)50532,368
Gibson Dr (River Rd & Montcalm Dr)50501,106
Blucher Street5054558
Penelope Dr (Cora to Ira Needles)5051838
Rennie Drive5051820
South Drive 5054292
Lyndhurst Drive5053940
Prosperity Drive50501,605
Mansion St (Edna St to Lancaster)5049897
Strange Street50534,706
Veronica Drive 5049886
Waterloo Street 5050837
3 - 20
Rusholme Road 5048834
Dumfries Ave (Stirling & Krug)50541,955
Ressurection Dr5051749
Floral Crescent30511,308
St. Leger St (Guelph St to Union St)5053998
Falconridge Drive 50521,232
Benesfort Drive 5043767
Mooregate Cres5040696
Erinbrook Drive5052904
Pine Valley Drive50511,089
Old Chicopee Trail5054457
Briarmeadow Drive 50541,387
Mt Hope St (Park St to King St)5043643
Lorne Avenue5048643
York Street (Glasgow to Union) 5047650
Selkirk Drive 5049641
Breckenridge Drive5048901
Wilderness Drive50511,163
Turner Ave (Victoria to Frederick)5048614
Pinedale Drive5050611
Margaret Avenue (Queen to Victoria) 50502,503
Ahrens Street West (Victoria to Hartwood) 5051434
Dunbar Rd5048589
Dunbar Rd (Glasgow to Union)5048589
Midland Drive5049589
Ridgemere St5049572
Rockway Drive5050556
Jansen Ave (Huber St & Fairway Rd N)5049531
Yellowbirch Drive50491,322
Hidden Creek Dr5046519
Eastforest Trail50533,834
Ruskview Road 5049572
Cherry Street5054953
Resurrection Drive5051741
Duke Street (Wellington to Waterloo) 5042432
Chapel Hill Dr (Stafford Ln to Caryndale Dr)5051260
Mt Hope St (Park St to Eden Ave)5044417
Claremont Avenue5051250
Jubilee Drive (Scenic)30365,110
Hickory Heights Cres5050568
Adelaide Street5046369
Borden Avenue North40502,305
Stoke Drive50511,368
Lucerne Drive5046325
Southill Drive 5050330
Arrowhead Crescent5031309
Brock St (Queen St & West Ave)5043301
3 - 21
Amherst Drive5049299
Earl Street5045276
Periwinkle Street5042269
Marl Meadow Drive5049636
Stirling Ave (East to Weber)5048566
Scenic Dr5044249
Everglade Cres5035208
Talbot Street5042200
Southwood Drive5048196
Westmeadow Dr50471,295
Market Street (Bridgeport)5035184
Riehm St5037185
Montcalm Drive5045460
Helena Feaseby St5051941
Blackwell Drive50533,026
Sweetbriar Drive 5049324
Stanley Ave5047499
Old Zeller Drive50511,608
Pioneer Tower Road (south section)5053412
St. Leger (Victoria St to Guelph St)5052508
Donnenwerth Dr (Bridlewreath & Bleams)50491,149
Sheldon Ave N (Weber St & Hwy 7)5047685
Commonwealth Street (Max Becker to Bleams)50491,322
Glasgow Street (University to F-H)50471,392
Shantz Lane5049252
Theresa St5040242
Bedford Road (Sydney to Courtland)5047186
Jackson Ave (King St & Weber St)5041115
Golden Meadow Cres5036107
3 - 22
Appendix E
Proposed Traffic Calming Policy
The City of Kitchener endorses traffic calming as a means to reduce speeding, through
traffic and collisions in residential neighbourhoods, thereby improving safety and quality
of life for the residents. The following outlines the basic premise of the traffic calming
policy.
1. Traffic calming measures will be considered on all roads save and except arterial
roadways. Roadways with scenic heritage designation will be considered, only with
approval by the City of Kitchener Heritage Committee.
2. Streets that are bisected by arterial/ major collector roadways may be reviewed
separately in street segments separated by the arterial/major collector roadway
should operational characteristics dictate.
3. Measures which cause a vertical deflection will not be considered on identified
emergency response routes or transit routes with a minimum of one transit vehicle
every 30 minutes at the commencement of the review.
4. Capital funds will be allocated to the Capital Budget for traffic calming studies and
measures annually.
th
5. A roadway must have a minimum volume of 1000 vehicles per day, and an 85
percentile vehicle speed of a minimum of 55km/h or, alternatively, no volume warrant
th
and 85 percentile speeds of 65km/h or greater in order to be considered for a
formal traffic calming review
6. Traffic calming projects will be rated and prioritized annually by staff based on the
criteria outlined in Table 1. Council is responsible for the approval of annual
recommended locations.
7. A minimum of 25% of the residents directly fronting the roadway under review must
be in favour of initiation of a traffic calming review in order for the study to proceed.
8. Traffic calming reviews will adhere to all legislative requirements.
9. A minimum of 50% of the residents directly fronting the roadway under review must
respond to a staff initiated questionnaire regarding potential measures with a
minimum of 60% of those that responded in favour of the recommended plan, for it to
be recommended for installation.
10. Council is responsible for the approval of the installation of all retrofit traffic calming
measures prior to installation.
11. New and innovative methods of traffic calming will continue to be investigated,
considered and used where feasible.
12. If a roadway has been identified in the Cycling Master Plan for the inclusion of
cycling facilities, then cycling facilities should be incorporated as part of the overall
traffic calming plan.
3 - 23
Appendix E
13. All retrofit traffic calming measures will be reviewed after a period of one year.
Removal of measures can occur if a minimum of 60% of the residents directly
fronting the roadway under review respond to a staff initiated survey and a minimum
of 60% of those that responded request removal.
14. The traffic calming policy will be updated in 10 year cycles, or whenever significant
changes in legislation warrant its update.
15. Developers will be encouraged to design streets that limit the potential for excessive
speeding and volume. If unable to do so to the satisfaction of the Director of
Transportation Services, then traffic calming measures will be incorporated in new
plans of subdivision where feasible.
3 - 24
Appendix E
Table 1
Evaluation Criteria
SPEED
24hour85%speedsinbothdirections0to402.5ptsareassignedperhm/habove
50km/htoamaximumof40
VOLUME
AverageAnnualDailyTraffic0to30Volumeofpointsbasedonclassification
(max30pts):
Local1ptper65vpd
MinorCollector1ptper165vpd
MajorCollector1ptper265vpd
SAFETY
ThreeYearCollisionHistory0to15Basedoncollisionrate(collisionsper
millionvehiclesperkilometre)
Presenceofsidewalks0to50sidewalksexistbothsides
1ptApp.20%ofsidewalkmissing
2ptsApp.40%ofsidewalksmissing
3ptsApp.60%ofsidewalksmissing
4ptsApp.80%ofsidewalksmissing
5ptsNosidewalks
Cycling0to55ptsIdentifiedasacyclingrouteinthe
CyclingMasterPlan
2.5ptsdirectlyconnectstoastreet
identifiedinthecyclingmasterplan
0ptsnotidentifiedinthecyclingmaster
plan,doesnotconnecttoanidentified
s
treet
CommunityDestinations(onstreet)0to5(max)5ptselementary/highschool
4ptsCommunityPark
3ptsCommunityCenter
2ptscommercialplaza
1ptother
0ptsnosignificantneighbourhood
communitydestinationonstreet
3 - 25
Appendix E
Traffic Calming Measures
MEASURE DESCRIPTION
CHICANE
A series of curb extensions on alternating sides of X
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 curb extensions is used.
CURB EXTENSION
A horizontal intrusion of the curb into the roadway X
resulting in a narrower section of the roadway
CURB RADIUS The reconstruction of an intersection corner using X
REDUCTION
a smaller radius, usually in the 3.0 m to 5.0 m
range.
DIRECTIONAL
A curb extension or vertical barrier extending to X
CLOSURE approximately the centerline of a roadway,
effectively obstructing (prohibiting) one direction
of traffic.
*DIVERTER
A raised barrier placed diagonally across an X
intersection, that forces traffic to turn and prevents
traffic from proceeding straight through the
intersection.
*FULL CLOSURE
A barrier extending across the entire width of a X
roadway, which obstructs all motor vehicle traffic
movements from continuing along the roadway
INTERSECTION
Raised islands located at an intersection, used to X
CHANNELIZATION obstruct specific traffic movements and physically
direct traffic through an intersection
ON-STREET
The reduction of the roadway width available for X
PARKING
vehicle movement by allowing motor vehicles to
park adjacent and parallel to the curb.
*RAISED
A marked pedestrian crosswalk at an intersection X
CROSSWALK
or mid-block location constructed at a higher
elevation than the adjacent roadway
*RAISED An intersection - including sidewalks - constructed X
INTERSECTION
at a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway.
RAISED MEDIAN
An elevated median constructed on the centerline X
ISLAND
of a two-way roadway to reduce the overall width
of the adjacent travel lines
*RAISED MEDIAN
A elevated median located on the centerline of a X
THROUGHtwo-way roadway through an intersection, which
INTERSECTION
prevents left turns and through movements to and
from the intersecting roadway.
3 - 26
Appendix E
RIGHT-IN/RIGHT
A triangular island at an intersection approach X
OUT ISLAND
which obstructs left turns and through movements
to and from the intersection street or driveway.
RUMBLE STRIP
Raised buttons, bars or grooves closely spaced at X
regular intervals on the roadway that create both
noise and vibration in a moving vehicle. Not
considered within 200m of a residence
SIDEWALK
A sidewalk is continued across a local X
EXTENSION 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 a "unraised" sidewalk extension,
the sidewalk is lowered to the level of the
roadway.
*SPEED HUMP
A raised area of a roadway, which deflects both X
the wheels and frame from a traversing vehicle.
**SPEED CUSHION
Similar to speed hump, with a center channel X
which allows for Emergency services to pass
without deflection
TEXTURED
A crosswalk incorporating a textured and/or X
CROSSWALK
patterned surface which contrasts with the
adjacent roadway.
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
A raised island located in the centre of an X
intersection, which requires vehicles to travel
through the intersection in a counter-clockwise
direction around the island.
ROUNDABOUT
A raised island located in the centre of an X
intersection, which requires vehicles to yield on all
legs, and travel through the intersection in a
counter-clockwise direction around the island.
*Will only be considered on identified emergency service routes or transit routes with a
minimum of one transit vehicle every 30 minutes at the commencement of a review with
written approval from emergency services and transit
** Will only be considered on transit routes with a minimum of one transit vehicle every
30 minutes at the commencement of a review with written approval from transit
3 - 27
Appendix E
PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING REVIEW
PROCESS MAP
3 - 28
Appendix F
Report: P-13-066
REGION OF WATERLOO
PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Transportation Planning
TO:
ChairJim Wideman and Members of thePlanning and Works Committee
DATE: FILE CODE:
June 18, 2013D09-40(A)
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ON LOCAL STREETS IN KITCHENER AND IN
OTHER AREA MUNICIPALITIES WITH GRAND RIVER TRANSIT ROUTES
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo endorse Report No. P-13-066, dated June 18, 2013,
regarding traffic calming measures on streets with Grand River Transit Routes;
AND THAT this report be forwarded to the City of Kitchener for consideration in its current review of
traffic calming measures and to all other Area Municipalities.
SUMMARY:
Traffic calming measures, generally defined as “the combination of mainly physical measures on
streets”, are increasingly being used to address concerns about vehicle speeds through local
neighbourhoods. In many cases, vertical measures, such as speed humps, speed tables or raised
crosswalks, are being used. Relative to horizontal measures, such as curb extensions or narrowed
travel lanes, vertical measures tend to have a larger impact on transit operations and customer
comfort. As a result, Regional staff is recommending that less reliance be placed on vertical traffic
calming measures for streets where GRT bus routes operate.
Monitoring of transit operations and analysis of bus running times has determined that routes with a
significant number of vertical measures on them tend to have increased running times. Transit
customers also experience a more uncomfortable ride each time a bus traverses a vertical traffic
calming measure. Transit staff conducted a cross-Canada survey and found similar concerns with
the use of vertical traffic calming measures at other transit systems. A number of transit agencies
indicated that policies exist in their municipalities to restrict the type of traffic calming used on
streets with transit service, often prohibiting vertical measures. Transit agencies operating on
streets with vertical traffic calming measures noted the negative impact they had on transit
operations and rider comfort. The stated preference was for non-vertical traffic calming measures.
Regional staff has discussed the negative impact of vertical traffic calming measures on transit
operations and rider comfort with the City of Kitchener. The City of Kitchener is currently evaluating
potential traffic calming measures on streets with existing bus routes: Morrison Road, Highview
Drive, Yellow Birch Drive and Golden Meadow Drive. The City is also in the process of updating
their traffic calming policy. City of Kitchener staff has indicated that they will consider the
recommendations of this report when developing this year’s traffic calming plans and during the
traffic calming measures policy update. The recommendations contained in this report should also
be applicable to other Area Municipalities with local roads that are used by Grand River Transit.
The Region is proposing to place raised crosswalks at some roundabouts to reduce speeds where
there is heavier pedestrian traffic. The design is modified to have a longer top and more gradual exit
slope which is expected to have less of an impact on bus operations than other vertical measures.
1394588 Page 1 of 14
3 - 29
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
REPORT:
Traffic calming measures are increasingly being used to deal with concerns about the speed and
volume of automobile traffic through local neighbourhoods. The three cities in Waterloo Region
have introduced policies that provide some guidance on when and how traffic calming measures
should be implemented. This report addresses concerns regarding the proliferation of vertical traffic
calming measures being introduced on streets that are used by Grand River Transit (GRT) buses.
Vertical traffic calming measures have a negative impact on transit operations and rider comfort.
Traffic calming measures can be complementary to efficient transit operations and a positive rider
experience. Typically, bus stops on local collector roads are spaced an average of 250 m apart.
Buses stopping to pick up and drop off riders slow down the speed of following traffic.
Staff generally support the concept of traffic calming, as it can improve neighbourhood streets for
non-vehicular users. Instead of vertical traffic calming measures which have a negative impact on
transit operations and rider comfort, staff prefer horizontal traffic calming measures such as curb
extensions, on-road parking bays or raised median islands or passive traffic calming such as radar
speed signs.
What is Traffic Calming?
The technical definition of traffic calming is: “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,” as outlined in the 1998 Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic
Calming produced by the Transportation Association of Canada.
While a number of different approaches can be used to calm traffic, a toolbox of different measures
in the City of Waterloo’s Transportation Master Plan gives a list of the types of tools that could be
used, grouped into active measures and passive measures (Table 1). Active measures can be
further divided into measures of vertical deflection or of horizontal deflection, in which the former
induce vehicles to reduce their speed through vertical impediment, and the latter induce vehicles to
reduce their speed through lateral movement.
Table 1 – Traffic Calming Measures Toolbox
Active Traffic Calming
Vertical DeflectionsHorizontal Deflections
Speed Humps, speed Cushions and Narrowed Travel Lanes
speed Tables
Curb Extensions
Raised Crosswalks
Raised Median Islands
Raised Intersections
On-Road Parking Bays
Textured Pavement
On-Road Exclusive Bike Lanes
Modern or Mini-Roundabouts and
Neighbourhood Traffic Circles
Intersection Channelization
Directional Road Diverters and
Closures
Passive Traffic Calming
Neighbourhood and Location-Specific Signage (NOTE: does not include Stop Signs)
Vehicle-Activated Traffic Calming Signs (VATCS), i.e., Radar Speed Signs
Pavement Colourization
Pavement Warning Markings and Reflective Pavement Markers
Source: City of Waterloo Transportation Master Plan.
1394588Page 2 of 14
3 - 30
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
City of Kitchener Traffic Calming Measures
In recent years, traffic calming measures have been introduced on a number of streets in the
Region, especially in the City of Kitchener. Kitchener has placed them on streets including Traynor
Avenue/Vanier Drive, Mill Park Drive, and Pioneer Drive, typically using vertical deflections such as
speed humps or tables. The City of Kitchener has installed just over 100 vertical traffic calming
measures (mostly speed humps, plus some raised crosswalks). Some temporary chicanes
(horizontal ‘zig-zag’ deflections) were tried on Greenbrook Drive, but were removed after problems
arose, including issues for GRT vehicles. The images below highlight some of the traffic calming
measures currently in place on City of Kitchener streets:
Figure 1 – Traffic Calming Measures in Kitchener
Vanier Drive between Massey Avenue and Erie Avenue – speed humps
Pioneer Drive between Nathaniel Crescent and Doon Village Road – speed humps
For 2013, the City of Kitchener identified three areas with existing bus routes for the implementation
of traffic calming measures. These are:
Highview Drive/Yellow Birch Drive/Golden Meadow Drive – The Preferred Design
Alternative includes: four (4) speed humps, two (2) raised crosswalks, one (1)
intersection narrowing, all-way stop control at Highview Drive & Driftwood Drive, “No
Parking Anytime” areas, and painted centerlines.
Morrison Road – The Preferred Design Alternative includes: two (2) speed humps, one
(1) raised crosswalk, and one (1) roadway improvement (curb extension).
Country Hill Drive – The Preferred Design Alternative includes: one (1) speed hump
between Cherry Hill Drive and Cedarhill Crescent, one (1) speed hump between the
trail crossing and Four Seasons Court, one (1) speed hump between Four Seasons
Court and Martinglen Crescent, one (1) raised crosswalk in front of Country Hills
Public School, and one (1) raised crosswalk at the trail crossing between Coach Hill
Drive and Four Seasons Court.
The Country Hill Drive review has already been approved by the City of Kitchener Council but has
not yet been implemented. The Morrison Road and the Highview Drive/Yellow Birch Drive/Golden
1394588Page 3 of 14
3 - 31
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Meadow Drive review have reports that are to go to the City of Kitchener Council in August. City
staff has agreed to incorporate the Region’s comments into the reports.
Regional staff provided comments on the three proposals in late February, noting the level of
service and potential transit impacts on each of the streets. Staff requested further discussion with
City staff regarding the best way to move forward and ensure that the residents’ use of transit in
those neighbourhoods is not negatively affected. Subsequently, a meeting was held in March 2013
between Regional and City staff to discuss the use of traffic calming, transit concerns and the
appropriate types of measures that should be used.
The City has traditionally relied on vertical deflection measures, as they have found these to be the
most effective in reducing speeds at the lowest cost. Unfortunately, at the same time, these have
some of the most significant impacts on transit service. One of the initial premises in the City’s
traffic calming policy states that “vertical traffic calming measures will not be considered on
emergency routes, transit routes or major roads”. The City found this to be a limiting condition and
so, in 2008, set up a test pilot of a variety of different speed hump designs. The pilot was observed
by various agencies including Transit, Fire, Police, and EMS. While the City selected a final
acceptable design with a less severe hump than earlier designs, Regional staff continued to
expressed concerns and did not endorse any particular design.
Transit Operations Impact
Monitoring of transit operations has found that the use of vertical deflections such as speed humps
are affecting bus schedules. In addition to the normal slowing down to pick up and drop off
passengers at bus stops, buses have to repeatedly slow down when approaching traffic calming
measures.
Before and after studies of running time were done for Route 2 F
H and Route 8 F,
OREST ILLAIRVIEW
as both routes operate on streets where speed humps were installed in 2008 (Greenbrook Drive for
Route 2 and Vanier Drive/Traynor Avenue for Route 8).This workhas shown that the construction
of traffic calming measures increases transit run times.
The Route 2 FOREST HILL showed a 34% increase in average running time on the 2.6 km stretch
of Greenbrook drive. This is a 12 second increase in running time per speed hump. Meanwhile the
Route 8 had a 20% increase in the average running time towards downtown and a 15% increase
towards Fairview Park Mall. Over the 2.8 km stretch, this is an increase of 9 seconds per speed
hump on the route.
Even after accounting for any other factors, the above results are consistent with Transport Canada
findings. In a 2005 report entitled Traffic Calming in Canadian Urban Areas, Transport Canada has
stated that each traffic calming measure can delay a bus by up to 10 seconds.
While one or two traffic calming measures may have a very minimal impact on transit schedules,
the cumulative effect of multiple traffic calming measures along a corridor can have a more
significant impact, causing buses to run late on existing schedules and requiring more running time
to be added to these routes or an additional vehicle added to the route (at cost) to maintain the
current schedule. This also makes travelling by transit a less attractive option to current or potential
riders, as travel times increase and routes experience schedule adherence problems.
Appendix A shows the current number of traffic calming measures by GRT route, indicating several
routes have multiple traffic calming features along their length that could cumulatively cause
problems involving schedule adherence, operations, and passenger comfort. Of note are Routes 2,
8, 10, 16, and 27, all of which have at least seven (7) traffic calming features over their length, and
might experience delays totalling over a minute along the route (see Table 2) from these features,
using the results of the running time studies above which are supported by Transport Canada’s
findings.
1394588Page 4 of 14
3 - 32
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Table 2 – Traffic Calming Features by GRT Route and
Approximate Cumulative Delay
ROUTE# FEATURESDELAY* (secs)
Route 2 981
Route 3 436
Route 4 436
Route 7B 4 36
Route 8 1199
Route 10 7 63
Route 10
3 27
extension
Route 11 6 54
Route 11
2 18
extension
Route 15 1 9
Route 16 10 90
Route 19 1 9
Route 20 1 9
Route 27 7 63
ALL 70
*A delay of 9 seconds per feature was used, this being the more conservative estimate from the two running
time studies that were completed and just below the Transport Canada estimate of 10 seconds.
Other potential impacts of vertical deflections on transit operations identified by Regional staff and
sent to the City of Kitchener in July 2004, include:
• Mechanical breakdowns involving the suspension
• Passenger comfort from going over the bump; this has also been identified by GRT
customers, as discussed in the following section.
Customer Impact
Problems have been identified with uncomfortable rides and extreme jostling of customers when
buses go over vertical deflections such as speed humps. This is particularly true for those
customers standing or seated near the rear of the bus as the motion is greater behind the rear
wheels.
Since 2006, sixteen (16) comments have been received related to traffic calming measures. Nine
(9) customers expressed having an uncomfortable or unpleasant ride due to speed humps, and two
(2) customers experienced an injury due to the movement of the bus over a speed hump. One (1)
customer had an issue with on-street parking used as a traffic calming measure, since it resulted in
her bus having to enter part of the oncoming lane to avoid parked cars. Four (4) of the comments
mention speed humps or traffic calming as secondary concerns.
CUTA Survey on Traffic Calming Measures
As part of the traffic calming review, Region staff asked the Canadian Urban Transit Association
(CUTA) to carry out a review of practices across the country determine how other transit systems
handle traffic calming measures in their communities. Appendix B summarizes the results of the
survey. The respondents generally found that, depending on the type of measure uses, transit
operations and customer comfort was affected. A number of transit agencies use their policies to
restrict the types of traffic calming allowed on streets with transit service. Typically, policies stated
that vertical deflections are not allowed or are limited.
1394588Page 5 of 14
3 - 33
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Speed Tables
Vertical deflection measures have a number of different designs with varying impacts on transit
operations. While speed bumps or humps are the most common term, in many cases, speed tables
are used instead as they have less negative impact. These are described in more detail in Appendix
C. While still calling them “speed humps”, the City of Kitchener uses this design in their more
recent installations. At the same time, while the impact may be less, they still can cause more
negative impact than other types of calming measures.
The Region is currently planning a slightly different speed table design at roundabouts, such as
those planned for Franklin Boulevard in Cambridge. These are proposed at pedestrian crossings,
and could be termed a “raised crosswalk”, as noted. Since these would be located at a crossing
where transit vehicles would be expected to yield or stop for pedestrians anyway, and they have a
longer table with a more gradual slope leaving the table, this measure is anticipated to have less
impact on schedule adherence. These are shown in Appendix C.
Alternative Measures
Rather than using speed humps or tables, other traffic calming measures are available that can
have the desired impact without the negative impact to transit. Appendix D describes other
approaches in more detail, including a newer kidney-shaped vertical deflection that may warrant
further investigation.
Recommendations
Staff recommend that the Region advise that, for the reviews currently underway, the City of
Kitchener use horizontal or passive traffic calming measures on streets with bus routes. Vertical
measures such as speed humps should be discouraged, due to negative impacts on transit
operations and passenger comfort and safety concerns. This is informed from operational
experience here in Waterloo Region, as well as in other municipalities in Canada, as determined
from the CUTA survey.
It is further proposed that policies in all local municipalities and the Region of Waterloo incorporate
a prohibition on vertical traffic calming measures on streets with bus routes, with limited exceptions.
One exception discussed in this report that could be acceptable for transit is measures at
intersections and crossings such as raised crosswalks or raised intersections (speed tables), which
have a similar, but lesser impact on transit operations and customer comfort than traditional speed
humps.
Finally, the Region will participate in the City of Kitchener’s review of their traffic calming policy,
which is planned to begin later this year. While the policy does state that vertical deflection will not
be considered on transit routes, this has not always been reflected in practice. A new policy should
look at existing traffic calming installations for review and possible retrofitting measures, to allow for
better integration with transit service where applicable. A new policy could also promote innovative
alternatives as described in this report, and traffic calming measures that are most beneficial to
sustainable transportation modes, including transit and cycling.
Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination
Regional and City of Kitchener staff have met as part of the review of 2013 traffic calming projects
in Kitchener. Comments from the Region will be used as part of their reports on specific traffic
calming projects this year. The Region will also be invited to participate in their forthcoming policy
review.
This report will be circulated to all municipalities.
1394588Page 6 of 14
3 - 34
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN:
The review of traffic calming measures supports the implementation of Council’s Strategic Focus,
identified under Focus Area 3: Sustainable Transportation: Develop greater, more sustainable and
safe transportation choices.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
While difficult to quantify, there are potential costs due to additional fleet maintenance on
suspension and potential revenue impacts from less ridership due to uncomfortable rides, personal
injury, unreliable schedule adherence and missed connections due to buses taking longer than
anticipated on their schedule. If the delays become large enough additional running time and buses
may be required.
OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE:
Transportation and Environmental Services provided input into this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A - Number of Vertical Traffic Calming Measures by Transit Route
Appendix B - CUTA Survey on Traffic Calming Policies and Measures
Appendix C - Speed Table Concept
Appendix D - Alternative Traffic Calming Measures
PREPARED BY:
Blair Allen, Supervisor Transit Development
APPROVED BY:
Rob Horne, Commissioner, Planning, Housing and Community Services
1394588Page 7 of 14
3 - 35
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Appendix ANumber of Vertical Traffic Calming Measures by Transit Route
-
1394588Page 8 of 14
3 - 36
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Appendix B- CUTA Survey on Traffic Calming Policies and Measures
A review of practices across the country was conducted to determine how other transit systems
handle traffic calming measures in their communities. A survey was carried out on our behalf by the
Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) of all transit systems serving populations greater than
100,000 people. Responses were received from 21 of the 36 systems (a 58% response rate). The
results are summarized in Table B1.
Table B1 – Summary of Responses from Transit Systems
across Canada
Number of Respondents 21
Number with Policies Regarding 10 (48%)
Traffic Calming
Number with Speed Humps on Bus 8 (38%)
Routes
No Response: 1
Positive/Negative Experience
Neutral: 3
with Speed Humps
Negative: 4
Number with Speed Tables on Bus 3 (14%)
Routes
No Response: 1
Positive/Negative Experience
Neutral: 2
with Speed Tables
Number who Restrict Speed Humps 9 (43%)
or Tables on Bus Routes
Identification of other Calming 12 (57%)
Measures
8
Traffic Circle/Roundabout
4
Median/Traffic Islands
6
Curb-outs/Extensions
4
Speed Cushion
3
Raised Crosswalk
1
Real-time Driver Feedback
Signs (speed displays)
2
Alternate Side Parking
1
All-way Stops
A number of transit agencies use their policies to restrict the types of traffic calming allowed on
streets with transit service. Typically, vertical deflections are not allowed or are limited. Toronto,
Barrie, York Region, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Ottawa are among cities that prohibit speed humps
or other vertical deflections on transit routes. As an example, Barrie’s policy sates that one of their
warrants to proceed with traffic calming is that “roadway is not a transit route.” TransLink (Metro
Vancouver’s regional transportation authority) indicates that it “does not support, in principle, the
installation of speed humps on bus routes for reasons of passenger safety and comfort, operational
efficiency, and vehicle maintenance implications.”
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)’s comments note the following concern about vertical
deflection: “vertical deflection causes discomfort and the potential for injury to bus passengers,
especially since many are standing and those who are sitting are not using seat belts. There is also
increased wear and tear on buses, and the potential for malfunctioning suspension, which could
cause damage to the vehicle undercarriage when going over a speed hump. The horizontal
measures such as traffic islands, medians, and painted lines on the road do not have these same
concerns, as long as they are designed to allow buses to manoeuvre around them.” The City of
Toronto Traffic Calming Policy stipulates that speed humps are not allowed on any street with
regularly-scheduled transit service. The TTC was directly involved in the City’s development of its
traffic calming policy.
1394588Page 9 of 14
3 - 37
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
OC Transpo’s comments with regard to vertical measures are “vertical measures such as speed
humps do have noticeable impacts on transit customers…Horizontal measures…have very little
impact …[and] often narrow the gap between motorist speeds and transit speed, which may
increase the attractiveness of transit.” They add that “speed humps provide a negative experience
for transit customers in terms of comfort as well as travel speed (perceived or actual). These effects
are even more pronounced for paratransit customers.”
In some cases, policies note that existing speed humps are permitted to remain.
Transport Canada draws similar conclusions to those apparent from the CUTA survey, noting in
Traffic Calming In Canadian Urban Areas that: “most communities do not permit vertical traffic
calming measures like speed humps or raised crosswalks on streets that serve transit routes or are
used frequently by emergency vehicles. Each such measure can delay fire trucks, ambulances and
buses by up to 10 seconds, with a group of measures threatening an unacceptable cumulative
delay.”
1394588Page 10 of 14
3 - 38
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Appendix C - Speed Table Concept
When vertical deflection is allowed, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Updated
Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps is generally followed. These guidelines
indicate that “speed humps are generally not recommended for use on bus routes…speed tables
may be more appropriate, and could be applied after consultation. Speed tables are generally used
on residential collectors, emergency routes or transit routes. The use of alternative traffic calming
measures may also be considered for use on bus or emergency vehicle routes.”
Below is a diagram showing a speed table, and, if no horizontal deflection alternative can be
employed, would be preferable for a use on a street with transit, as opposed to a standard speed
hump or speed bump. The longer length and flat-topped design provides for a gentler ride, and the
tables don’t require vehicle operating speeds to be reduced below 40 km/h, according to the ITE
Guidelines. When installed at a pedestrian crossing or intersection, the tables can be referred to as
raised crosswalks/intersections, and provide greater visibility for pedestrian crossings, thanks to the
raised surface and textured material that is usually applied on the flat top. Speed tables therefore
have the potential to address the considerations of pedestrians as well as improved transit
operations over speed humps. However, speed tables could still create issues for transit operations
if used mid-block, as they would delay the route by causing it to slow down at points in between
scheduled stop locations.
Figure C1 – Speed Table – Cross Section
Textured
Asphalt or concrete
Source: ITE Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps (2007).
The City of Kitchener defines a speed hump in their traffic calming policy as “a raised area of a
roadway, which deflects both the wheels and frame from a transversing vehicle” – this definition
does not mention design details specific to a speed table, as shown in Figure C1. The term “speed
table” is not mentioned anywhere in the City policy; however, they do make reference to raised
crosswalks/intersections, which as discussed are speed tables implemented at crossing points. The
policy mentions the use of these in midblock locations, however, which could have the negative
effect of creating additional delay for transit vehicles, as mentioned.
1394588Page 11 of 14
3 - 39
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Figure C2 – Midblock Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table in the City of Kitchener
Laurentian Drive between Shea Crescent and Dunsmuir Drive
The Region is currently planning a slightly different design of speed table at roundabouts, such as
those planned for Franklin Boulevard in Cambridge. These are proposed at pedestrian crossings,
and could be termed a “raised crosswalk”, as noted. Since these will be located at a crossing where
transit vehicles would be expected to yield or stop for pedestrians anyway, regardless of traffic
calming measures being in place, this measure is anticipated to have less impact on schedule
adherence. The flat-topped design also provides for a smoother ride compared to speed humps. As
Figure C3 shows, these are similar in cross-section detail to the sinusoidal speed table in Figure
C1, with slightly longer vertical height (100m compared to 76 mm) and a more gradual slope ay the
end of the feature.
Figure C3 – Raised Pedestrian Crossing at Roundabouts – Plan and Cross Section
Source: Stantec Inc.
1394588Page 12 of 14
3 - 40
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Appendix D - Alternative Traffic Calming Measures
Some active traffic calming measures that would have minimal impact on transit operations and
transit users are outlined in Table D1, and could be considered preferable to vertical deflections
including speed humps:
Table D1 – Traffic Calming Measures Acceptable for Transit Operations
MeasureImpact on Transit Operations
CurbAcceptable under some conditions; however, it can create delays and prevent
Extensionsturning movements
IntersectionImpact depends on desired route at this point; would prevent buses turning at the
Channelization intersection
On-streetWhen road widths allow, this is acceptable, although it has an impact due to more
Parkingpotential conflicts between parking and bus movements
On-street Bike When road widths allow, this is acceptable and can encourage more cycling
Lanes
RaisedHas a similar, but lesser, impact as speed humps
Crosswalk/
Raised
Intersection
(speed tables)
SidewalkSame as raised crosswalk/intersection
Extension
TexturedNo significant impact
Crosswalk
A recent innovation in traffic calming is a device called the ‘speed kidney’, which has been
developed by a highway research group in Spain. This device is meant to minimize some of the
disadvantages of traditional traffic calming measures such as speed humps. It consists of a main
speed hump and a complementary speed hump on the same cross section (see Figure 5). The
design allows vehicles to modify their path laterally, along the curvature of the main speed hump, to
avoid the discomfort and possible mechanical damage of vertical deflection. The ITE explains that
this design would minimize delays on buses and emergency vehicles,” as wider vehicles can
circulate with a straight path without going over the speed kidney”. This would also reduce physical
discomfort experienced by bus passengers. Cyclists could also avoid the discomfort of a speed
hump, as the device can be navigated without vertical deflection. The Transportation Research
Board describes this device as “a functional, feasible, sustainable, and safe solution for traffic
calming”. It is almost as inexpensive as a speed humps, has been proven in tests to lower speeds,
and has no negative effect on transit vehicles. Innovative solutions like the kidneys could be
explored as alternatives.
1394588Page 13 of 14
3 - 41
June 18, 2013Report: P-13-066
Figure 5 – Speed Kidney – Plan and Cross Section
Source: ITE Journal, December 2012.
Conclusion
Traffic calming measures that are supportive of a Complete Streets approach (accommodating the
needs of all road users, including transit, pedestrians and cyclists) such as raised or textured
crosswalks, curb extensions at bus stops, parking changes to narrow (or create a perception of
narrowing) the street and on-street bike lanes are also alternatives that would better align with
RTMP goals and have minimal impact on transit operations. These measures increase the visibility
of other modes of transportation besides the automobile, and reduce the roadway width, which can
slow down traffic in a way that does not necessitate the introduction of vertical deflections such as
speed humps.
Because of the importance of controlling excessive vehicle speeds in our community, staff support
the appropriate use of traffic calming measures in the appropriate locations. At the same time, there
is concern about the adverse impact on transit operations and thus on the transit customer of
certain measures, especially vertical measures such as speed humps. As noted in the York Region
policy, staff wish “to ensure that buses can negotiate traffic calming schemes in a satisfactory
manner without damage to the buses, and to maintain a safe and comfortable environment for both
our customers and bus operators”. If this environment is not maintained, ridership, revenue and
cost levels can all be impacted.
1394588Page 14 of 14
3 - 42