HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-14-042 - Amendment to INS-13-106 - Traffic Calming Policy Staff Re wry
Infrastructure 5erlrrres department wwwkitchenerra
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: April 7, 2014
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: March 14, 2014
REPORT NO: INS-14-042
SUBJECT: Amendment to INS 13-106 - Traffic Calming Policy
RECOMMENDATION
That the existing Traffic Calming Policy 1-1235 dated August 30, 2004 be repealed
and replaced with the Traffic Calming Policy as attached.
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee considered report number INS-13-
106-Traffic Calming Policy; on Monday, November 25th, 2013 (minutes are attached).
The report outlined revisions to the City's current traffic calming policy. At that time
Committee recommended three (3) minor amendments and "referred" the decision
regarding the policy pending further community input.
REPORT
As a result of Committee's direction, a public information centre (PIC) was held on
January 28th from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm at City Hall. The meeting itself was advertised
both online and in the Kitchener Post two weeks prior to the PIC. Four (4) Kitchener
residents attended the meeting, however, no formal comments were received. Most of
the discussion that did take place was based on local neighbourhood traffic issues
rather than the proposed traffic calming policy.
Due to lack of input from the PIC, Transportation Planning then forwarded the proposed
traffic calming policy to each neighbourhood association within the City of Kitchener.
Again, no comments were received regarding the proposed amendments to the policy.
In addition, an online survey regarding the proposed policy was conducted and
circulated through social media. While 38 people viewed the survey, four (4) provided
comment (attached). A brief summary and correspondence to each concern identified is
as follows:
11 - 1
• Use "Stop Signs" as a traffic calming method— All-Way Stop Controls are meant
to safely alternate the right-of-way at an intersection to opposing traffic flows
rather than calm traffic. In order for an All-Way Stop Control to be warranted, a
significant amount of traffic must exist on both streets. If there is little traffic on
the side street, drivers who regularly use the major street will start anticipating
that they will not have to yield to anyone and may disobey the stop signs, which
can compromise pedestrian safety. Additionally, unnecessary vehicle stops at
unwarranted stop signs increase traffic noise, air pollution and waste fuel.
• Interview residents on adjacent streets — Through report INS-13-106, it is
proposed that the survey boundary be modified to include all users. The
proposed methodology will include a survey of residents that are potentially
affected by the proposed traffic calming measures. 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.
• Greater input to initiate a study— The existing traffic calming policy requires that
"a minimum of 25% of the residents directly fronting the roadway under review
must respond in order for the study to proceed". Through report INS-13-106,
Transportation Services has proposed that "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". The proposed
modification will necessitate the need for greater input to initiate a review.
Based on the above, Transportation Services recommends that the traffic calming
policy, as amended based on comments received through report INS 13-106, be
approved, and replace the existing traffic calming policy (I-1235).
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
As part of the 2014 City of Kitchener budget deliberations, traffic calming received
$165,000.00 to conduct three (3) reviews and install the corresponding measures. It is
anticipated that the annual budget remain consistent, assuming that 3 reviews are
conducted annually.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The proposed traffic calming policy was subject to a PIC, circulated to all applicable
neighbourhood associations and an online survey.
Traffic calming reviews, when executed, involve extensive public involvement and
communication.
11 - 2
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO
Infrastructure Services Department
Attachments
Appendix A - Minutes of November 25th
Appendix B - Surveys
Appendix C - Proposed Traffic Calming Policy
11 - 3
Appendix: A
SPECIAL PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 25,2013 CITY OF KITCHENER
The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee met this date, commencing at 2:41 p.m.
Present: Councillor B.Vrbanovic-Chair
Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors K. Galloway-Sealock, S. Davey, J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-
Graham, F. Etherington,Z. Janecki,Y. Fernandes, P. Singh and B. loannidis.
Staff: J. Willmer, Chief Administrative Officer
D. Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance and Corporate Services
M. May, Deputy CAO, Community Services
P. Houston, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services
J. Readman, Director, Transportation Services
D. Murray, Interim Director, Information Technology
J. Murphy, Manager, Corporate Contact Centre
S. Nickel, Manager, Information Technology Planning & Projects
B. Cronkite, Project Manager, Transportation Planning
D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator
D. Livingstone, Committee Administrator
1. CSD-13-077 - CORPORATE CUSTOMER SERVICE STRATEGY-PHASE 2 UPDATE
The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-13-077, dated
October 30, 2013 recommending that prior to the completion of Phase 2 of the Corporate
Customer Service Strategy, staff will report back with information regarding the acquisition and
implementation of a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) plan, as well as the purchase
and implementation of the PingStreet mobile application.
Mr. M. May, Ms. J. Murphy, and Ms. S. Nickel presented the report advising that Phase 2 of
the Corporate Customer Service Strategy includes an initial review of the CRM Software,
strengthening the Corporate Contact Centre (CCC) by expanding the hours of service to a 24/7
operation; and, prioritizing business / service requirements for the City's e-services. Mr. May
stated that the next steps of the Strategy include implementing an internal and external
communication plan regarding the changes that will occur at the Corporate Contact Centre,
conducting a training needs assessment related to customer service; and, purchasing and
implementing the PingStreet mobile based application. He further advised that staff will
continue to investigate the resources required to proceed with the acquisition and
implementation of a CRM software program and will report back in 2014 with final
recommendations.
Several members spoke in support of enhancing and streamlining the City's customer service
approach, noting that the implementation of a CRM software system would bring significant
advantages to respond to customer inquiries and identifying current gaps in service.
In response to questions, Ms. Nickel advised that the PingStreet application is anticipated to be
launched in early 2014. In addition, staff agreed to circulate a copy of the presentation to all
members of Council.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that any recommendation arising from this meeting would be
ratified at the December 9, 2013 Council meeting.
The following motion was then voted on and Carried Unanimously on a recorded vote by all
members present.
On motion by Mayor C. Zehr-
it was resolved:
"That prior to completion of Phase 2 of the Corporate Customer Service Strategy, staff
be directed to report back in 2014 with the following information:
• A Customer Relationship Management (CRM) acquisition and
implementation plan, including detailed costing, that is in-line with the
roadmap outlined in Community Services Department report CSD-13-077;
and,
11 - 4
SPECIAL PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 -63- CITY OF KITCHENER
1. CSD-13-077 - CORPORATE CUSTOMER SERVICE STRATEGY - PHASE 2 UPDATE
(CONT'D)
• A multi-year roadmap, including timelines, for the delivery of additional e-
services by the municipality; and further,
That staff be directed to proceed with the purchase and implementation of the
PingStreet mobile application in an effort to enhance online customer service and
diversify the options residents have for requesting services and information from the
municipality."
2. FCS-13-176 - CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE REPORT
The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-13-176,
dated November 12, 2013 regarding an update on the Corporate Technology Strategic Plan
entitled `Plotting the Course to a New Partnership'.
Mr. D. Murray presented the report providing an update on the five main recommendations that
were presented to Council on June 27, 2013 through Report FCS-11-143. He advised that in
order to maximize technology the following four long-term Information Technology (IT)strategic
directions were identified: mobile computing, working for staff on the move; improved handling
of citizen requests for service; faster response time for citizens; and, improve efficiency and
effectiveness through the better use of data. He stated that one method of achieving a number
of these strategic directions includes the use of mobile computing. He highlighted the goals
and objectives contained within the Mobile Computing Strategy Executive Summary, and noted
that in order to achieve these objectives, dedicated staff resources would be required to
implement and maintain them on a continuing basis. He stated the required resources to
deliver the mobile computing strategy, will come forward as part of the 2014 Operating Budget
deliberations on December 12, 2013.
At the request of Councillor J. Gazzola, staff agreed to circulate a copy of the presentation to
all members of Council.
3. INS-13-106 - TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY
The Committee considered Infrastructure Services Department report INS-13-106, dated
October 30, 2013 recommending the repeal of existing Traffic Calming Policy I-1235 dated
August 30, 2014, and the approval of the new Traffic Calming Policy attached to the Report.
Mr. J. Readman introduced Report INS-13-106 advising that the City of Kitchener's Integrated
Transportation Master Plan, approved in June 2013, recommended a review of the 2004
Traffic Calming Policy.
Mr. B. Cronkite presented the proposed Traffic Calming Policy and highlighted the major
changes from the existing policy. He reviewed the existing and proposed features of the policy
including: the establishment of reviews; evaluation criteria; vertical measures; and, resident
circulation. Mr. Cronkite indicated that traffic calming reviews require public involvement and
communication, with an increase in neighbourhood engagement ensured through procedural
changes for resident surveys within the policy. He stated that next steps include a report
recommending review locations which will be brought forward for consideration in early
January 2014.
In response to questions, Mr. Cronkite advised that there are no criteria for streets with specific
environmental features, such as a hill, to receive consideration for review under the proposed
policy. Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock indicated that there are significant environmental
features that may be close to meeting the 85th percentile which should be reviewed for traffic
calming measures and requested that an additional criterion be proposed for the policy. She
also stated that the evaluation criteria related to community destinations should be expanded
to an area of 200m to capture areas surrounding schools, parks and community centres. Mr. K.
Carmichael suggested an expansion of the area should be to 450m, to coincide with the Grand
River Transit walkability distance.
11 - 5
SPECIAL PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 -64- CITY OF KITCHENER
3. INS-13-106 - TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY(CONT'D)
Several Councillors expressed concern with Clause 15 of the proposed Traffic Calming Policy
indicating that developers should be required to design streets that limit excessive speed and
volume. It was confirmed by Mr. Cronkite that development agreements do consider traffic
impact and calming measures; however, he acknowledged that the wording within the policy is
designed to encourage developers.
Mr. Cronkite responded to questions related to the number of locations per year that were
proposed through the annual budget process to receive traffic calming reviews, stating that the
proposed budgetary allocation for traffic calming in 2014 is $220,000. Mr. Carmichael
confirmed that the cost per review ranges from approximately $50,000. to $55,000. so if
Council were to reduce the proposed locations from four to three there would be an equivalent
cost reduction.
At the request of the Committee,staff agreed to include an estimate of the cost for each type of
traffic calming measure proposed within the new Traffic Calming Policy.
On motion, Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock brought forward the recommendation contained
within Report INS-13-106, including the following additional considerations: evaluation criteria
to be expanded to 450m of community destinations and for significant environmental features,
as well as strengthening of Clause 15 related to the responsibility of developers to design
streets that limit the potential for excessive speed and volume.
Councillor S. Davey then requested that staff bring forward an issue paper detailing information
on the traffic calming practices and budgets of other municipalities, with an examination of the
impact of reducing the proposed 2014 review to three locations.
An amendment was brought forward by Councillor J. Gazzola to require that staff host a public
information session before the Traffic Calming Policy is finalized.
Councillor Gazzola's amendment was then voted on and Carried, with Councillors J. Gazzola,
Z. Janecki, F. Etherington, D. Glenn-Graham, S. Davey, Y. Fernandes, B. Vrbanovic and
voting in favour; and Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors P. Singh , B. Ioannidis, K. Galloway-
Sealock voting in opposition.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic suggested that the Traffic Calming Policy could be accepted in
principle to allow the public to have input on the additional considerations put forward by
Councillor Galloway-Sealock as well as the contents of the proposed policy prior to finalization.
On motion by Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock-
it was resolved:
"That the existing Traffic Calming Policy I-1235 dated August 30, 2004 be repealed and
replaced with the Traffic Calming Policy attached to Infrastructure Services Department
report INS-13-106 pending input from a Public Information session as well as the
following amendments:
• That Clause 15 of the Traffic Calming Policy be amended to "Developers
will be required 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 to limit speed and volume to the
satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services", and,
• That Clause 5 of the Traffic Calming Policy be amended to "A roadway
must have a minimum volume of 1000 vehicles per day, and an 85th
percentile vehicle speed of a minimum of 55km/h or, alternatively, no
volume warrant and 85th percentile speeds of 65km/h or greater in order to
be considered for a formal traffic calming review.Additionally, roadways
within 10% of the noted criteria that have identified environmental
constraints will also be considered for a formal traffic calming review"; and
further,
11 - 6
SPECIAL PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 -65- CITY OF KITCHENER
3. INS-13-106 - TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY(CONT'D)
• That Table 1 (of proposed Evaluation Criteria), be amended to reflect
Community Destinations within 450m of a roadway under review."
4. ADJOURNMENT
On motion, this meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
D. Livingstone D. Saunderson
Committee Administrator Committee Administrator
11 - 7
Surveys Appendix: B
Traffic Calming Surrey
User Information
Name: Anonymous Email: N/A
Location: N/A Company: N/A
Position: N/A IP Address:
Started: 03/05/2014 3:45 PM Completed: 03/05/2014 3:46 PM
0 days, 0 hours, 1 minutes, 68
Time Spent: seconds, 68000 milliseconds Custom I: N/A
Custom 2: N/A Custom 3: N/A
1. Do you agree with the proposed changes to the traffic calming policy?
Other, please specify:[No,Answer Entered]
Yes
2. Do you think we've missed something, or do you feel there are other criteria that should be
considered? If so, please provide your comments below:
You should require a greater amount of resident support to initiate a traffic calming review.
3. Would you like to be notified of the date this information is being presented to Committee?
Other, please specify:[No Answer Entered]
No
4. General comments:
[No Answer Entered]
5. If you answered YES to number 3, please provide your contact information so that we can contact
you.
Name: -
Daytime Phone Number: -
Email Address: -
11 - 8
httn'Hkitchener snrvPV Psnliitionquroiin ra/PrinfRegnnnGQ.nsnx?,�iirvevlD=841,Jmm7&lnq.._
Traffic Calming Survey
User Information
Name: Anonymous Email: N/A
Location: N/A Company: N/A
Position: N/A YP Address:
Started: 03/04/2014 8:17 PM Completed: 03/04/2014 8:32 PM
Time Spent: 0 days, 0 hours, 16 minutes, 934 Custom 1•` N/A
seconds, 934000 milliseconds
Custom 2: N/A Custom 3: N/A
'�. Do you agree with the proposed changes to the traffic calming policy?
Other, please specify:[No Answer Entered]
Yes
2. Do you think we've missed something, or do you feel there are other criteria that should be
considered? If so, please provide your comments below:
How about interviewing those residents on the streets that will likely become the chosen faster route
from the street being calmed? For example, you calm Glasgow between Fisher-Hallman and
Westmount, so much of the traffic will then go down Westwood Drat higher speeds.
3. Would you like to be notified of the date this information is being presented to Committee?
Other, please specify:[No Answer Entered]
No
4. General comments:
[No Answer e=ntered]
5. If you answered YES to number 3, please provide your contact information so that we can contact
you.
Name: -
Daytime Phone Number: -
Email Address: -
11 - 9
http://kitchener.stuvey.esolutionsgroup.ca/PrintResponse.aspx?SurveyID=84LJmm7&ing..,
Traffic Calming Survey
User Information
Name: Anonymous Email: N/A
Location: N/A Company: N/A
Position: N/A IP Address:
started: 03/04/2014 8:36 PM Completed: 03/04/2014 8:53 PM
0 days, 0 hours, 18 minutes,
Time Spent: 1055 seconds, 1055000 Custom 1: N/A
milliseconds
Custom 2: N/A Custom 3: N/A
1. Do you agree with the proposed changes to the traffic calming policy?
Other, please specify:[No Answer Entered]
No
2. Do you think we've missed something, or do you feel there are other criteria that should be
considered? If so, please provide your comments below:
STOP SIGNSM
If people want to do a "rolling stop" at least they're still slowing down. They cost A LOT less than
"vertical deflections" and do not effect transit riders, emergency services, drainage and snow clearing
operators.
I realize the OTM specifies that stop signs can only be used for traffic control and not for traffic
calming, therefore, perhaps the municipality should be lobbying the province to make changes. It
seemed to work in the old days when there were neighbourhoods full of stop signs, only complaint I
seem to recall is people being annoyed having to stop so often.
3. Would you like to be notified of the date this information is being presented to Committee?
Other, please specify:[No Answer Entered]
No
4. General comments:
Vertical deflections and potholes - my vehicle's suspension and tax dollars can't take anymore...
5. If you answered YES to number 3, please provide your contact information so that we can contact
you.
Name:
Daytime Phone Number:
Email Address: -
11 - 10
httn Aitrhener s urvev.esnlutic)ncprcnm.cn/PrintRefinonse.asnx?SurvevlD=941.,7mm7&ln2...
Traffic Calming Survey
User Information
Name: Anonymous Email: N/A
Location: N/A Company: N/A
Position: N/A IP Address:
Started: 03/04/2014 8:02 PM Completed: 03/04/2014 8:14 PM
Time Spent- 0 days, 0 Hours, 12 minutes,.740 Custom 1: N/A
seconds, 740000 milliseconds
Custom 2: N/A Custom 3: N/A
Do you agree with the proposed changes to the traffic calming policy?
Other, please specify:[No Answer Entered]
Yes
2. Do you think we've missed something, or do you feel there are other criteria that should be
considered? If so, please provide your comments below:
Not that comes to mind.
3. Would you like to be notified of the.date this information is being presented to Committee?
Other, please specify:[No Answer Entered]
No
4. General comments:
I'm particularly in favour of proposal three, which limits the use of vertical deflection. I have seen
some cars maintain a high rate of speed over some of these areas, and rather than being slowed
down, they tend to lose their grip on the roads and drift slightly, especially in slippery conditions
where cornering is involved.
At the same time, this calming method can cause other cars to slow well below the limit, especially
when transporting items which require special care to prevent upsetting. (transporting plants from
the nursery home, if they are jostled, dirt gets everywhere in the car).
Rather than being perceived as a means of calming traffic, they are seen as a nuisance.
I'm glad to see that other methods of traffic calming are now preferred options.
5. If you answered YES to number 3, please provide your contact information so that we can contact
you.
Name: -
Daytime Phone Number: -
Email Address: -
11 - 11
http://kitchener.survey.esolutionsgroup.ca/PrintResponse.aspx?SurveyID=84LJmm7&Ing...
Appendix: C
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.
5. A roadway must have a minimum volume of 1000 vehicles per day, and an 85th
percentile vehicle speed of a minimum of 55km/h or, alternatively, no volume warrant
and 85th percentile speeds of 65km/h or greater in order to be considered for a
formal traffic calming review. Additionally, roadways within 10% of the noted criteria
that have identified environmental constraints will also 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.
11 - 12
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.
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 required 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 to limit speed and volume of traffic to the satisfaction of the
Director of Transportation Services.
11 - 13
Table 1
Evaluation Criteria
SPEED
24 hour 85th percentile speeds in both 0 to 40 2.5 pts are assigned per km/h above
directions 50km/h to a maximum of 40
VOLUME
Average Annual Daily Traffic 0 to 30 Volume of points based on classification
(max 30 pts):
vpd=vehicles per day
Local—1pt per 65 vpd
Minor Collector—1pt per 165 vpd
Major Collector—1pt per 265 vpd
SAFETY
Three Year Collision History 0 to 15 Based on collision rate(collisions per
million vehicles per kilometre)
Presence of sidewalks 0 to 5 0 sidewalks exist both sides
1 pt- App. 20%of sidewalk missing
2 pts- App.40%of sidewalks missing
3 pts- App. 60%of sidewalks missing
4 pts- App. 80%of sidewalks missing
5 pts- No sidewalks
Cycling 0 to 5 5 pts- Identified as a cycling route in the
Cycling Master Plan
2.5 pts-directly connects to a street
identified in the cycling master plan
0 pts- not identified in the cycling master
plan,does not connect to an identified
street
Community Destinations 0 to 5(max) 5 pts-elementary/high school
(within 450m of a roadway under review) 4 pts-Community Park
3 pts-Community Center
2pts-commercial plaza
1 pt-other
0 pts- no significant neighbourhood
community destination on street
11 - 14
Traffic Calming Measures
MEASURE DESCRIPTION
W
UJI
> ' U
0
V) o
ate. W
[L
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
THROUGH two-way roadway through an intersection, which
INTERSECTION prevents left turns and through movements to and
From the intersecting roadway.
11 - 15
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
11 - 16
TRAFFIC CALMING REVIEW PROCESS
..............
Traffic Calming Rec1lttest
Data Collection Roadlways imust have a iminiirnuim voluume of 1000 vehicles a
......................
(speedl,voluime,collisions) day and ani 8511'percentile speed)greaterthan 55 kern/h,or a
'"6ildFltlrl 11 E miniimiuim'851"percentile speed of 65 km/h with no
miniimuim voluume in ordlerto be consideredforatraffic
caliming review
Staff reportto Committee
recarnrnendling locations fear review
\IIC n 14"wTIIhIIhflThll':',u
annually
Initiation suirvey senitto the affected Initiation survey muist'achieve 25%residlent support
residlenitsoffthe approved roadway
for a traffic calirniing review tocomirnienice l II"N TWAII R11111NC@
for review
Communication with,affected l lltlly r11 r `rrir�litua�ir tir
11 111 o I oda iul �ur�tin.r,l fto
r
agencies identifying any concern s oIuIIhi n,�rui Ick�a f tli;'ka,tliiw
(,tlrrtirii pirr<<.aua
L" blik Irvfourmllori
�pi"'rc:r �,trha,rr thlin ra(a011urn r lirrreh{
(1'
r:I lrre ,mnf4rnuy,iw, aiwloolIoo(—ul l iw nrlii,�: rffectedl residents/agencies notified aft PIC. Input
collected regarding existing conditions
Develop alternatives,including
comments from agencies and
residlents
Project Steering Team evaluate each, Preferred l alternative sentto affected)agencies for
alternative and dletenrn�ine a co mime nits. Preferred alternative imodified if
preferred l alternative"
necessary
21", lu bllue Irrf orwal on(:w idiw (irlv�}
piw.¢iri,tliornor ,tlteriral vo,,
ndu.chnr,prcOn w d alleta,i naiilve and [Affected resident/agencies notified l of PIC'. Input
�rllllau9w P IwuEl�llliu„:linpu r collected regrardingpreferredlahernative
Final survey with recommended
measures,sent to affected l residents;
requires 50%response rate and 60%
of the respondents suipportingthe
recoimmendledl plan
Sraf'i repi)w t too Comm! tm moth a Affected residlenitsandl agencies notified of
rw,r,;cronmmndaa'tlori h tsml on Hnall committee dPate/June report will be presented
r€rwray ro,,idls
/rlrl'RC,;f'r,ll,i;C
: Installation of approved)imeasuires
11`40 TRCIIeCN"n'IFd . .......................
”
I s 1r orris,irwPt!if 1�dtIatr�uefititlr,,i,. IoIIl v irl,irrie�vv uIve�y i IWit�w,ww,11)111uee
"
rwtiran ernll l,�,'l,tlw:,n Ityln ally I yoal alto r IN M111ne,i dilia'il o IIIr,w;iar4!,it 11 1)
iii,t,,Il,a1loII n AI iiu ,,,inwr>j or wiie�ie'!,i�i vod it wi, on ia!,irlt�ra'P`
k lmra up I viov"
iiii )traffic Calming Review complete
The traffic calnming review process typically talkes 3 years from data collection to installation (it should be noted
that installation can vary depending on efficiencies in reconstruction). Measures are reviewed approximately one
year post installation for effectiveness and overall neighbourhood support,
11 - 17