The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutINS-14-006 - Guelph St - Traffic Calming Review Staff Rep►�►r I r Infrastruc�ture5ervrresDepartment wvwuukitchenerra REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: February 3, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Justin Readman, Director of Transportation Services PREPARED BY: Justin Mishko, Traffic Technologist, 519-741-2200, extension 7153 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: January 7, 2014 REPORT NO.: INS-14-006 SUBJECT: GUELPH STREET - TRAFFIC CALMING REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS: That one raised crosswalk be installed on Guelph Street at Edwin Street; and, That a road narrowing be installed on Guelph Street at: • Margaret Avenue, • Woodward Avenue, • Crestwood Avenue, • Floyd Street, • St. Leger Street, • Arnold Street, • Englewood Place; and, That parking be prohibited on both sides of Guelph Street encompassing the narrowed roadway at: • Margaret Avenue, • Woodward Avenue, • Crestwood Avenue, • Floyd Street, • St. Leger Street, • Arnold Street, • Englewood Place; and, That parking be prohibited on the west side of Guelph Street from Margaret Avenue to St. Leger Street; and, 2 - 1 That parking be prohibited on the east side of Guelph Street from St. Leger Street to Lancaster Street West; and further, That sharrows along with complementary cycling signage be installed on Guelph Street from Moore Avenue to Lancaster Street West. BACKGROUND: Traffic volume and speeding are significant safety related issues frequently raised by residents of affected neighbourhoods in the City of Kitchener. In response to these issues, Kitchener City Council adopted a Traffic Calming Policy in 2004 and established an annual budget to address traffic management issues in residential neighbourhoods. The traffic calming policy outlines a number of evaluation criteria that provide a fair and consistent review of streets and communities, while defining and prioritizing the individual streets and/or communities that are most in need of traffic calming from a traffic safety perspective. In February 2012, Council approved INS Report 12-015, "Traffic Calming Priority—2012", which recommended that a traffic calming review be conducted for several streets in the City of Kitchener including Guelph Street. In response, Transportation Services staff has reviewed the existing traffic conditions on Guelph Street and in June 2012, a neighbourhood traffic calming review was initiated with the intent to reduce vehicle speeds, deter non-residential traffic from the area and reduce the incidence of collisions, thereby increasing safety for all users within the right of way. REPORT: In April 2012, affected area residents were surveyed in order to determine if there was sufficient neighbourhood support to commence the traffic calming review. Through this survey it was determined that sufficient resident support existed as per the City of Kitchener Traffic Calming policy. Subsequently, two public meetings were held in June 2012 and November 2012 to discuss the traffic calming review process along with the current traffic conditions, alternative design options as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each design alternative and present the preferred design alternative option as determined by the traffic calming steering committee. As part of the traffic calming review process, staff circulated the preferred design alternative option to all affected agencies for comment. Kitchener Fire provided the following comments: This is a designated Primary response route and as such, Fire maintains its position that the Department does not support traffic calming initiatives that will affect apparatus response times to emergencies that will in turn, affect citizen safety. The Department maintains a Council approved Standard of Cover that outlines our response times to Fire, Medical, Rescue and HazMat calls and traffic calming initiatives such as the alternatives proposed have a negative impact on being able to achieve those response times. In addition to response times, traffic calming initiatives have a detrimental effect on our apparatus due to additional wear and tear and will have an effect on our apparatus maintenance budget in the future. 2 - 2 In addition, Grand River Transit provided the following information in response to the preferred design alternative: • Currently Grand River Transit travels along Guelph Street with the Route 18. The route is two way between Margaret and St. Leger and westbound only between Lancaster and St. Leger. The service has a frequency of every 30 minutes. • Under the 2014 Regional budget process, there is a proposal to restructure the route such that it will no longer travel along Guelph Street. This will be determined in January. • A longer term option will consider reintroducing two-way service all the way along Guelph Street into the industrial area but no detailed analysis of this option has yet been completed. • The use of largely horizontal traffic-calming measures (road narrowings) is seen as a positive option that will minimize any negative impact on transit service (assuming there is service along Guelph Street). Transit staff would encourage this approach in other areas as well. Furthermore, Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) responded to the circulation of the preferred design alternative. GRCA staff indicated that the study area is outside of GRCA's regulated areas. In April 2013, Transportation Services staff mailed a final survey to all affected area resident and property owners surrounding Guelph Street. This survey asked all residents and property owners if they were in favour of the preferred design alternative. The intent of the survey was to determine if there was sufficient support for the implementation of the recommended traffic calming measures. As per the City of Kitchener Traffic Calming policy, a minimum of 50% of directly affected residents / property owners must respond to the survey and 60% of the respondents must support the recommended plan, in order for there to be any further consideration of the plan. There were a total of 167 surveys sent out to residents and property owners that abut or are adjacent to Guelph Street. The results of this survey are as follows: In favour of the recommended plan: 41 (80.4%) Opposed to the recommended plan: 8 (19.6%) Total 51 responded out of 167(30.5%) Note:One response received with no information. One response received with no vote. The result of the final survey shows that the minimum approval rate has been comfortably achieved indicating significant support for the plans, while the minimum support rate has not. Based on the elements selected for the preferred design alternative, Transportation Services staff feel that the surrounding neighbourhood will benefit from these recommended improvements. The Cycling Master Plan identifies Guelph Street from Moore Avenue to Lancaster Street West as part of the cycling priority network. The installation of sharrows through this corridor along with the addition of segregated parking bays will provide a more `complete streets' final product to Guelph Street. It should be noted that the installation of segregated parking bays will be completed concurrently with impending capital works projects which translates into no additional cost for these measures. 2 - 3 Upon completion of the scheduled capital works project, Transportation Services staff will author a report for committee and council's consideration outlining the specifics of the no parking anytime restrictions that will be required for Guelph Street from Margaret Avenue to Lancaster Street West. The proposed raised crosswalk at Edwin Street addresses safety concerns brought forward to staff. There is currently one adult school crossing guard at this location which services Prueter Public School and Margaret Avenue Public School via a trail connection linking the other portion of Edwin Street. Based on this, Transportation Services staff is recommending that the preferred design alternative be implemented. This plan includes the following: • One raised crosswalk on Guelph Street at Edwin Street • One road narrowing at Guelph Street at Margaret Avenue • Single-side road narrowings at Woodward Avenue, Crestwood Avenue, Floyd Street, St. Leger Street, Arnold Street and Englewood Place • Sharrows and complementary cycling signage on Guelph Street from Moore Avenue to Lancaster Street West FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As the majority of the proposed measures involves road narrowings (curb work), this will be worked into impending capital projects scheduled for 2016/2017 respectively. The cost for the installation of the raised crosswalk is approximately $5,000 with an additional $2,000 for related signage. This cost will be taken from the existing traffic calming budget. The cost to install sharrow pavement markings along with related signage is approximately $5,000. This cost will be taken from the cycling budget. COMMUNICATIONS: This project has had extensive public involvement and communication. It has included two public information centres, two information packages and three surveys including the final survey. Attach. • Road Narrowing & Parking Bay Conceptual Design • Preferred Design Alternative Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Infrastructure Services Department 2 - 4 Road Narrowing & Parking Bay Conceptual Design ST. LEGER ST. FLOYD ST. CRESTWOOD AV. WOODWARD AV. .... ARNOLD ST. ENGLEWOOD PL. 1 EDWIN ST. RAISED CR0551NALK GUELPH STREET TRAFFIC CALMING REVIEW iW ,H NJ."R ALTERNATIVE 1 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2 - 5 Preferred Design Alternative • One raised crosswalk walk on Guelph Street at Edwin Street • One road narrowing at Guelph Street at Margaret Avenue • Single-side road narrowings at Woodward Avenue, Crestwood Avenue, Floyd Street, St. Leger Street, Arnold Street and Englewood Place • Sharrows and complementary signage on Guelph Street from Moore Avenue to Lancaster Street West RAISED CROSSWALK .. , k u 7`71" PARKINGBAY / NARROWING ry . ► .........�T AL,L,-WAY �. ti 9 jw 4-1), q(` ",v'*" 1 �' ✓""" Y Ma"�I ��,'...J+' «''"d� 1 ^il t y w '"e '��q ��1 °��*�'�,� R"u✓"" u4� b M1 4 LL.�y,R rr"°� °x N �. "l� � �h" m �ry � M1 ti bM1 � �' �✓ a r'n'^� a �� "�", , ,,, m�v�10� i '��'"�" nd v Pw'�° � YY ti�Q ^✓^' urn" W „' r,'� � � � �`h�� " , � �`� " n• „, + " e , R'"^ �$'� �� ,,�" ,*, 'u�" ,dry ,�"�+ V y W, '"tier� ,r��,"p+�"' * `�V��,wy�� w � .�' ^"r� �,�"^�* ,.9, � � M1�,w '�p „�""l�'y� µ.✓i, I ��" �, 1�,WW""Mi.•� „ N � � � RAISED CROSSWALK — TYPCIAL DESIGN ry V d 1 M1 S § V ry M1 �M1 �u^w'�, r,W ' � � N w,� � � �� " �'"�" 'Mrs p .�r„•.:�RI[J ..,y{m.. :.c��A IU, ,.... ��fC. .... �,�� .... �.;"� 2 - 6