Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-06-157 - Traffic Calming Update ) c,_> KITCHENER Development & Technical Services ~ Report To: Date of Meeting: Submitted By: Prepared By: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: Chair C. Weylie and Members of the Development and Technical Services Committee 2006 October 23 John McBride Ken Carmichael, Supervisor of Traffic and Parking (741-2372) All 2006 October 18 DTS-06-157 TRAFFIC CALMING UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS: That no action be taken regarding the temporary traffic calming measures on Greenbrook Drive until all affected residents have been given the opportunity to provide their input, and; BACKGROUND: That the remainder of this report be received for information purposes only. Council, at their meeting on October 16, 2006, asked staff to report to the October 23, 2006 Development and Technical Services (DTS) Committee on the following issues related to traffic calming in the City of Kitchener: Provide an update on the 2005 Traffic Calming Program Provide an update on the 2006 Traffic Calming Program Provide a specific update on the status of the Kingswood Drive traffic calming Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Request consideration of all-way stop controls at Greenbrook Drive I Stoneybrook Drive, Greenbrook Drive IForest Hill Drive - Village Road, and Greenbrook Drive ILakeside Drive Impacts of unwarranted all-way stop controls Operating conditions for the northbound left turn from Greenbrook Drive onto Forest Hill Drive and the impacts of traffic calming measures in this area Consideration of a 40 km/h speed limit on Greenbrook Drive Stop sign installation during winter months Impacts of traffic calming measures on winter maintenance Length of trial period What process is required to reconsider traffic calming on Greenbrook Drive. This report will serve to provide Council with the requested information related to the above issues. - 2 - REPORT: 2005 Traffic Calminc Environmental Assessments - Uodate In August 2004, through report DTS-04-125, Council approved the City of Kitchener Traffic Calming Policy, which included a recommendation to complete a traffic calming Class EA in 2005 for three (3) locations: David Street/Schneider Avenue, Greenbrook Drive and Kingswood Drive. The following provides an update for each location: David Street / Schneider Avenue The approved traffic calming plan for David Street / Schneider Avenue included the following measures: · Permit westbound entry only on Schneider Avenue at Queen Street, prohibiting eastbound access to Queen Street. · Installation of a median on Queen Street to prohibit northbound left turns from Queen Street onto Schneider Avenue. These measures will effectively eliminate the unnecessary through traffic that had been using Schneider Avenue / David Street as a short-cut to/from the Downtown, avoiding congestion on Queen Street. Proiect Status The Class EA portion for this project is complete. The one-way treatment on Schneider Avenue at Queen Street was implemented with temporary measures in March, 2006. Temporary measures were used to allow staff to monitor their impacts through all seasons of the year, allow for minor adjustments, if necessary, as well as to allow for scheduling the permanent installations to tie into planned construction activities in the area. The installation of the median on Queen Street, not yet installed, will be done along with the Region of Waterloo's planned roadway improvements, scheduled for 2007 or 2008, dependant on their final scheduling. Greenbrook Drive The approved traffic calming plan for Greenbrook Drive included the following measures: · Two centre-island chicanes, one near Lakeside Drive and one near Stoneybrook Drive. · One offset chicane near Forest Hill Drive - Village Road. · Road narrowing at Birchcliffe Avenue. · Speed hump north of Ruskview Crescent. These measures are intended to reduce vehicle speeds on Greenbrook Drive and possibly reduce the amount of through traffic, thereby increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. Proiect Status The Class EA portion for this project is complete. The three (3) chicanes and road narrowing were implemented with temporary measures in March, 2006. The speed hump has not yet been installed. - 3 - Staff has conducted a review of the area to measure the impact of the traffic calming installations. In this regard, a letter and accompanying survey will be sent to all residents of Greenbrook Drive, those on streets that intersect Greenbrook Drive, those streets that could possibly be impacted by the through traffic, those residents that had registered at either of the public meetings, or those who otherwise indicated an interest in this initiative. This letter will outline the impacts that the temporary traffic calming measures have had on traffic volumes, speeds and collision history, and will include a mail-back survey asking for the residents' position regarding permanent installation of these measures. This letter and survey is expected to be mailed to residents the week of October 23, 2006, with feedback expected to be obtained and summarized by the end of November, 2006. Be advised that Engineering Services has identified Greenbrook Drive between Westmount Road and Fischer Hallman Road as a location that requires some form of roadway rehabilitation treatment. Accordingly, Transportation Planning will be working with Engineering Services to schedule any permanent traffic calming installations to coincide with this proposed rehabilitation work. Kingswood Drive The approved traffic calming plan for Kingswood Drive included the following measures: · Two centre-island chicanes, one between Selkirk Drive and Gracefield Crescent and one between Gracefield Crescent and Alpine Road. · Two offset chicanes, one between Appalachian Crescent and Appalachian Crescent and one between Roberts Crescent and Roberts Crescent. · An all-way stop control at Kingswood Drive and Alpine Road. These measures are intended to reduce vehicle speeds on Kingswood Drive and possibly reduce the amount of through traffic, thereby increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. Proiect Status The Class EA portion for this project is complete. However, through the mandatory review period for this project, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has received an appeal from a private citizen to review this project and its findings. As a result, the City is unable to proceed with the recommended traffic calming plan until approval is granted by the MOE. The MOE has confirmed that the file in under review and is confident that the Minister will sign off prior to the end of 2006. This would still permit the installation of the temporary measures over the winter months. 2006 Traffic Calminc Environmental Assessments - Uodate In November, 2005, through report DTS-05-187, Council approved the initiation of a traffic calming EA to be completed in 2006 for the following three (3) locations: Chopin Drive, Chandler Drive and Bradley Drive. Homewood Avenue was added due to its scheduled reconstruction in 2006. The following provides an update for each location: - 4 - Chopin Drive The 2nd public meeting has been held with residents of this area, where a preferred alternative was presented. This alternative proposes the following measures: · A raised crosswalk located at the existing school crossing, in front of AR Kaufman Public School. · An all-way stop control at Chopin Drive and Hazelglen Drive. These measures are intended to reduce vehicles speeds on Chopin Drive, particularly in the area of the public school, as well as to allocate proper right-of-way at the Chopin Drive / Hazelglen Drive intersection. Proiect Status Staff are currently obtaining input from all affected agencies regarding our preferred alternative. Once this input is received, the area residents will then be surveyed regarding their desire to implement the preferred alternative. This input is expected to be received and summarized by the end of 2006, with a report to Committee expected early in 2007. This timing will allow for any potential measures to be installed in 2007. Homewood Avenue The 2nd public meeting has been held with residents of this area, where a preferred alternative was presented. This alternative proposes the following measures: · A series of three (3) speed humps on Homewood Avenue between Queen Street and West Avenue. These measures are intended to reduce vehicle speeds and the amount of through traffic on Homewood Avenue. Proiect Status Staff are currently finalizing input from the residents subsequent to the 2nd public meeting. In addition, staff are obtaining input from all affected agencies regarding our preferred alternative. Once this input is received, the area residents will then be surveyed regarding their desire to implement the preferred alternative. This input is expected to be received and summarized by the end of 2006, with a report to Committee expected early in 2007. This timing will allow for any potential measures to be installed in 2007, in concert with the installation of the final lift of asphalt. Chandler Drive The 151 public meeting was held with the area residents in March, 2006, which presented various traffic calming alternatives for consideration. From this input, staff has developed a preferred alternative that will be presented to the residents of this area at the upcoming 2nd public meeting. This preferred alternative proposes the following measures: · Raised crosswalk north of Mowat Boulevard, in front of the permanent location for the Chandler - Mowat Community Centre. · Two (2) speed humps, one between Bonfield Place and Woodfern Court, and one north of Woodfern Court, in front of the City of Kitchener Parks Operations yard. · Road narrowing at Elmsdale Drive. - 5 - These measures are intended to reduce vehicle speeds and through traffic on Chandler Drive, thereby increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. Proiect Status Staff are currently preparing the information for the 2nd public meeting with the residents, expected to be held in November. This meeting will present the preferred alternative to the residents. Once this meeting is held and additional input is received, all affected agencies will then be solicited for input regarding our preferred alternative. At that point, staff will be surveying the residents regarding their desire to implement the preferred alternative. This input is expected to be received and summarized by January, 2007, with a report to Committee expected in early 2007, allowing for implementation of any potential measures in 2007. These measures are intended to reduce vehicle speeds on Chandler Drive and possibly reduce the amount of through traffic, thereby increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. Bradley Drive The 1 sl public meeting was held with the area residents in March, 2006, which presented various traffic calming alternatives for consideration. From this input, staff have developed a preferred alternative that will be presented to the residents of this area at the upcoming 2nd public meeting. This preferred alternative proposes the following measures: · A series of three (3) speed humps on Bradley Drive between Franklin Street and River Road. These measures are intended to reduce vehicle speeds and through traffic on Bradley Drive, thereby increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. Proiect Status Staff are currently preparing the information for the 2nd public meeting with the residents, expected to be held in the near future. This meeting will present the preferred alternative to the residents. Once this meeting is held and additional input is received, all affected agencies will then be solicited for input regarding our preferred alternative. At that point, staff will be surveying the residents regarding their desire to implement the preferred alternative. This input is expected to be received and summarized by January, 2007, with a report to Committee expected in early 2007, allowing for implementation of any potential measures in 2007. These measures are intended to reduce vehicle speeds on Bradley Drive and possibly reduce the amount of through traffic, thereby increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. Potential AII-Wav Stoo Locations Staff have completed an all-way stop analysis for these three (3) intersections, using the Council-approved City of Kitchener major collector all-way stop warrant. Results are as follows: - 6 - Greenbrook Drive / Stoneybrook Drive All-Way Stop Intersection Analysis - June 23, 2005 Arterial/Major Collector/Connector Results All-Way Stop Warrant (Min. Requirements) A V2. Hourly V olume(All Approaches) 500 375 AND A vg. Hourly Volume (Minor 200 56 Approach) AND A vg. Hourly % Split on Minor 30% 14% Roadway OR A vg. Yearly Collision History 4/yr. O/yr. I All- Way Stop Warranted? I INO I An all-way stop at this location is not warranted for overall intersection traffic volume, minor approach volume and traffic volume split, or for collision history. As a result, an all-way stop control is not recommended for the intersection of Greenbrook Drive and Stoneybrook Drive. Greenbrook Drive / Forest Hill Drive - Village Road All-Way Stop Intersection Analysis - July 21, 2004 Arterial/Major Collector/Connector Results All-Way Stop Warrant (Min. Requirements) A vg. Hourly V olume(All 500 500 Approaches) AND A vg. Hourly Volume (Minor 200 50 Approach) AND A vg. Hourly % Split on Minor 30% 10% Roadway OR A vg. Yearly Collision History 4/yr. 1.0/yr. I All- Way Stop Warranted? I INO I An all-way stop at this location is not warranted for minor approach traffic volume and traffic volume split, or for collision history. As a result, an all-way stop control is not recommended for the intersection of Greenbrook Drive and Forest Hill Drive - Village Road. - 7 - Greenbrook Drive / Lakeside Drive All-Way Stop Intersection Analysis - May 17, 2005 Arterial/Major Collector/Connector Results All-Way Stop Warrant (Min. Requirements) A V2. Hourly V olume(All Approaches) 500 651 AND A vg. Hourly Volume (Minor 200 54 Approach) AND A vg. Hourly % Split on Minor 30% 8% Roadway OR A vg. Yearly Collision History 4/yr. 0.33/yr. I All- Way Stop Warranted? I INO I An all-way stop at this location is not warranted for traffic volume split and minor approach volume, or for collision history. As a result, an all-way stop control is not recommended for the intersection of Greenbrook Drive and Lakeside Drive. Imoacts Of Unwarranted AII-Wav Stoo Controls The warrants for the installation of an all-way stop control as set out in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM), and by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), and are in place to assign right-of-way in an effort to ensure the most safe and efficient traffic operations at the intersection. The City of Kitchener has established its own All-Way Stop Warrant, based on the OTM and ITE requirements, which was approved by Council in 2002, and has been utilized since. The placement of an all-way stop control at an unwarranted location can negatively affect the operations of the intersection, thereby reducing its efficiency and, more importantly, increasing the potential for vehicle and/or pedestrian collisions. Stop signs should never be installed in an effort to control speeding. Studies undertaken have shown that the placement of stop signs on roadways only reduces the speeds of vehicles within 60 metres either side of the stop controls. Mid-block speeds are not reduced on a roadway after stop controls are placed. Additionally, studies also indicate that, when vehicles are not required to stop for cross traffic, the stop controls are abused in that only 5% to 20% come to a complete stop, 40% to 60% will come to a "rolling" stop (below 8 km/h), and 20% to 40% will pass through the stop sign at higher speeds. These conditions obviously lead to a greater collision potential at the intersection. - 8 - Numerous studies have been conducted regarding the placement of unwarranted all-way stop controls. A review of over 70 technical studies has found the following negative impacts: Safetv Problems: Drivers not obeying the right-of-way at all-way stop intersections. Stop sign compliance is poor at all-way stops as drivers do not make a complete stop. This primarily occurs as drivers feel that the signs have no traffic purpose. Safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted all-way stops especially small children. Pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at the stop signs but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of "running" the "unnecessary" stop signs. Drivers recognize that stop signs are not needed at an intersection and tend to ignore the control resulting in potential safety problems. This leads to a general decrease in compliance with traffic control devices. All-way stops do not control speeds nor do they reduce speeds on residential streets. In fact, in some cases, speeds increase mid-block due to drivers making up time that they lost at "unnecessary" stop signs. Economic Imoacts: · Increased delays. · All-way stops increase vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions. According to a report completed in 1993 in association with the Institute of Traffic Engineers, in Richmond, Virginia, the average increase in operating costs per vehicle at an all-way stop was $.04 US dollars. While individually this is not significant, collectively it adds up to being very impactful. · This would result in additional annual operating costs for the following all-way stops location, based on existing traffic volumes: Greenbrook / Village Road - Forest Hill Drive = $103,715 Greenbrook / Stoneybrook = $72,860 Greenbrook / Lakeside = $136,060 · The capital cost of installing all-way stops is low, but the enforcement requirements are prohibitive. Ooerational Imoacts: · Increased stops and delays. · Increased traffic congestion at an intersection. · Driver anxiety, impatience. · Increase in collisions, under certain circumstances. · Unwarranted all-way stops can present liability issues for municipalities with documented all-way stop warrant practices. Environmentallmoacts: · Increased noise and air pollution due to increased vehicle stops and acceleration. Unwarranted all-way stops have been removed successfully in other municipalities with public support and result in improved compliance at justified stop signs in adjacent areas. - 9 - Greenbrook Drive at Forest Hill Drive - Left Turn Concerns have been raised by the public concerning the difficulty to make a safe left turn from northbound Greenbrook Drive onto westbound Forest Hill Drive, due to the existence of the offset chicane at this location. Site investigations indicate that, due to the presence of this new offset chicane, when vehicles execute this left turn movement, traffic behind is forced to stop, unable to get around the turning vehicle. The position of staff on this issue is that, while we recognize that this condition creates additional delays, it also functions as a form of traffic calming in itself by discouraging faster moving vehicles from "slipping around" the turning vehicle. A collision analysis at this location has shown that just one collision has occurred at this location since the installation of the chicane. This rear-end collision was attributed to a late reaction by the driver without signaling, which resulted in the vehicle behind colliding with the vehicle that had taken this rash action. This collision, while affected by the chicane, cannot be considered to be caused by the chicane. Additionally, the traffic count indicates that a total of 82 vehicles make this left turn on a typical day, or 11 vehicles during the afternoon peak period. Therefore, due to this left turn volume being low, along with the fact that there has been minimal collision occurrence related to this issue, it is recommend that operations at this intersection remain as is. Recuest For 40 Km/h Soeed Limit The City of Kitchener, along with the Traffic Engineering field, has conducted studies measuring the effect of reducing the speed limit on a City roadway. These studies have continually shown that the posted speed limit on a municipal roadway does not influence drivers' speeds. Due to the fact that there will never be the amount of police enforcement required to alter driver behaviour, typically, drivers will drive at a rate of speed that is comfortable for them, based on the surrounding conditions of the roadway, such as roadway width, pedestrian activity, road side shy factors (ie. trees, parked vehicles, horizontal and vertical curves in the roadway, etc.). Common Traffic Engineering practice is to set speed limits based on the 851h percentile speed, reflecting that the design and conditions of the roadway dictate that drivers will drive at a rate that is comfortable to them. Therefore, "artificially" reducing speed limits have no effect on actual vehicle speeds. Transportation Planning do not support reducing speed limits when studies indicate otherwise. Revising the speed limit would not change vehicle speeds, while contributing to further misuse of other traffic regulatory signs. - 10 - Stoo Sian Installation Durina Winter Months A typical all-way stop location will include a Stop sign on all approaches, painted or taped stop bars on each approach, as well as painted or taped crosswalks (where sidewalks are present). While signs could be accommodated on portable stands, the pavement markings for the stop bars and crosswalks cannot be placed in winter conditions. Both the paint and the tape do not adhere to the frozen roadway surface. As a result, Transportation Planning recommend that all-way stop controls NOT be installed during winter months as the required measures to keep the intersection safe cannot be accommodated in frozen conditions. Traffic Calmina Measures - Imoact On Winter Maintenance As noted, none of the traffic calming measures have been in place through an entire winter period. However, staff did meet with Operations' staff to set up "mock" traffic calming measures in the field, in an effort to measure the impact on Operations created by these devices. All measures have been designed to ensure that winter maintenance vehicles can, firstly, negotiate the measures, and secondly, provide the required maintenance while within these measures. Snow clearing will be able to be executed, however, Operations have provided the following comments: "Snow on the entrance and exit ends of the island (parallel to flow of traffic) will not be possible to be removed with the plough truck, while this is not directly on the driving lane, this will cause potential problems with melting and refreezing, possibly causing isolated icy conditions in these areas, further, we may not be meeting Minimum Maintenance Standards if this snow is left on the roadway. The presence of the centre island, dictates we must plough these areas with the wing in the raised position. Without the benefit of the wing plough moving the snow out and away from the rear tire tracking, snow will be brought back onto the road by the rear tandems. Significant amounts of snow may be left on the roadway as a result. Further, it was stated that driveways located within the traffic calming area will receive significant amounts of snow being deposited at the driveway end." While only minimal amounts of snow fell after the temporary measures were installed on Greenbrook Drive, no major problems were experienced. Allowing the temporary measures to remain through this coming winter will allow staff to properly assess the impact of these measures on operations. Potentially, Operations staff may be required to dedicate more time in these areas, possibly impacting their budget. Traffic Calmina Trial Period - Temoorarv Measures As noted in the Traffic Calming Update portion of this report, upon completion of the Class EA, traffic calming measures have been installed on a temporary basis. The intent is to have the new traffic calming measures in place, in a temporary fashion, for a full winter season. This has been done to provide staff with an opportunity to measure the effects on traffic conditions created by the traffic calming measures, determine the impacts of these measures on roadway maintenance, as well as to allow for further public input, including a formal survey, before the permanent measures are installed. - 11 - Process To Reconsider Traffic Calmina On Greenbrook Drive Council will always have the option to stop, remove or alter traffic calming measures up until the time that they are permanently installed. As a part of the traffic calming process, provisions were included to install, where applicable, the traffic calming measures on a trial basis. After an appropriate review period, the public will be consulted and a full report will be made to Council on the effectiveness and public acceptance of the measures. Only upon Council approval would they be installed permanently. However, once installed permanently, the Environmental Assessment Act requires a second EA to remove them. John McBride, Director Transportation Planning Ken Carmichael, C.E.T. Supervisor of Traffic and Parking Transportation Planning KC