|
CITY OF VANCOUVER ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT |
Date: |
March 10, 2005 | |
Author: |
David Rawsthorne | |
Phone No.: |
604-873-7343 | |
RTS No.: |
4904 | |
CC File No.: |
5757 | |
Meeting Date: |
March 29, 2005 |
TO: |
Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic |
FROM: |
General Manager of Engineering Services |
SUBJECT: |
Annual Speed Hump Installation Program, 2005 |
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT speed humps be installed on the local residential streets specified in this report subject to approval from a resident survey, with funding of $140,000 from (A5a), the Local Area Traffic Plans and Other Improvements program, subject to approval of the 2005 Streets Basic Capital Budget.
B. THAT commencing in 2006, the Traffic Operating Budget be increased by $4,000, subject to review as part of the 2006 Operating Budget.
COUNCIL POLICY
In November 1999, Council approved an annual speed hump installation program that would identify the highest ranking local, residential street segments for speed hump installation.
PURPOSE
This report seeks approval and funding for the 2005 Annual Speed Hump Installation Program. It identifies the proposed speed humps locations and outlines a method for public consultation.
BACKGROUND
In 1999 the City completed the Speed Hump Pilot Project. The results of the pilot project indicate that speed humps are an effective device for decreasing speeds on local residential streets while not diverting traffic to other streets. In the subsequent five years, Council has approved the installation of speed humps on 128 street segments throughout the city.
In order to choose the streets to receive speed humps, an objective scoring calculation was used, adapted from a successful program in Portland, Oregon (see Appendix A). This calculation was approved by Council in November 1999 and used to identify the priority, or top ranked, streets for speed hump installation. The calculation considers the number and speed of vehicles using the block, as well as special attributes of the street, such as nearby pedestrian generators or its status as a greenway or bikeway. The speed measure used is the 85th percentile speed.
Prior to and following the installation of speed humps in 2001, traffic was monitored on the street segments which received speed humps, as well as on adjacent streets. In every location where speed humps were installed, speeds were reduced. A typical school or playground zone which previously had an 85th percentile speed over 50 km/h has seen this reduced to between 30 and 40 km/h. Residential streets which had 85th percentile speeds over 60 km/h now experience speeds between 40 and 50 km/h.
Diversion of traffic to adjacent residential streets is often a concern when implementing traffic calming measures. Traffic data collected before and after the installation of approximately 130 speed humps in 2001 show that, in the vast majority of applications, speed humps produce no appreciable diversion of traffic to adjacent streets.
DISCUSSION
27 street segments are being recommended for speed hump installation this year. Of these segments, 14 are adjacent to parks, 13 are in school zones, four are on bike routes, and two are on transit routes. All 27 segments are in 30 km/h school or playground zones. Table 1 on the following page lists the street segments with information about their ranking and the approximate number of humps to be installed.
In previous years, speed humps have not been installed on transit routes due to concerns from TransLink. In 2004, a pilot installation of speed tables, flat-topped speed humps, was completed on bus routes on Lamey’s Mill Road and on Muirfield Drive. For the 2005 program, TransLink has approved the installation of speed tables on bus routes on Adanac Street and on Wellington Street.
One highly ranked street segment, on Carnarvon Street near Fire Hall #21, has been omitted from the list of recommended sites at the request of Fire and Rescue Services. This street receives frequent use by emergency vehicles and the installation of speed humps would interfere with timely response to emergencies.
Seven other street segments which rank among the proposed speed hump locations are not included in this proposal. The traffic calming warranted in these locations is being addressed by other neighbourhood traffic calming or Greenways programs.
Experience shows that speed humps rarely produce significant diversion of traffic to adjacent streets. However, staff recommend that traffic volumes be monitored before and, where diversion of traffic is suspected, after the installation of speed humps and that they report back in the case that diversion of traffic is observed.
Street Segment |
Score |
85th Percentile Speed |
Traffic Volume
|
Estimated Number of Speed Humps |
Adanac, Skeena to Boundary |
171 |
54 km/h |
4700 |
2 |
East 5th, Kaslo to Renfrew |
160 |
56 km/h |
1200 |
2 |
East 51st, Clarendon to Elliott |
107 |
51 km/h |
800 |
2 |
Keefer, Jackson to Heatley |
102 |
50 km/h |
600 |
3 |
West 29th, Balaclava to Carnarvon |
82 |
48 km/h |
1200 |
3 |
Laurel, W 57th to W 59th |
81 |
48 km/h |
1000 |
2 |
Henry, E 29th to E 31st |
77 |
48 km/h |
1100 |
3 |
Wellington, Rupert to McHardy |
76 |
47 km/h |
1400 |
2 |
Drake, Pacific to Marinaside |
75 |
46 km/h |
1600 |
3 |
Wallace, King Edward to W 27th |
67 |
48 km/h |
900 |
3 |
East 8th, Woodland to Commercial |
67 |
47 km/h |
800 |
2 |
Pandora, Skeena to Kootenay |
67 |
47 km/h |
800 |
3 |
West Hastings, Broughton to Jervis |
66 |
43 km/h |
3900 |
2 |
Turner, Penticton to Slocan |
65 |
47 km/h |
1300 |
2 |
East 3rd, Templeton to Garden |
65 |
46 km/h |
700 |
2 |
Willow, W 37th to W 39th |
64 |
44 km/h |
2400 |
3 |
Waverley, Nanaimo to Elliott |
64 |
46 km/h |
700 |
4 |
Alberta, W 42nd to W 44th |
63 |
47 km/h |
1300 |
2 |
Heather, W 18th to W 19th |
63 |
46 km/h |
800 |
1 |
Point Grey Road, Alma to Highbury |
62 |
43 km/h |
2200 |
2 |
Glen, Keefer to W Georgia |
62 |
48 km/h |
900 |
2 |
East 60th, Borden to Argyle |
62 |
46 km/h |
1200 |
2 |
Falaise, Worthington to Matapan |
62 |
46 km/h |
600 |
3 |
Woodland, E 1st to E 2nd |
61 |
43 km/h |
1600 |
2 |
Columbia, W 59th to W 62nd |
60 |
47 km/h |
800 |
4 |
East 11th, Glen to Clark |
60 |
47 km/h |
500 |
2 |
Prince Albert, E 59th to E 61st |
60 |
46 km/h |
500 |
4 |
Table 1: Proposed Speed Humps Locations
Resident consultation and subsequent approval is an important part of the Speed Hump program. Staff propose that all residents living on the same street segments as the proposed speed humps be surveyed for their opinions. The surveys would ask two questions (see Appendix C for an example) about whether the residents feel that there is a speeding problem on their street and whether they approve of speed humps. Installation of speed humps on each street segment will be subject to a survey response rate greater than 30% and an approval rate greater than 50%. Staff recommend that speed humps be installed on all of the proposed streets that meet these criteria and that staff report back on any locations that do not for further consideration.
Of the more than 70 residential blocks which were surveyed as part of the 2000, 2001 and 2002 Speed Hump Programs, five did not support the installation of speed humps. In 2003, only one survey failed to receive support for speed hump installation. This block and its neighbouring streets are currently the subject of a more extensive traffic calming study. In 2004, all the recommended speed humps were supported by local residents and have been installed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The estimated capital cost of installing speed humps, as specified in this report, is $140,000 for the 33 proposed locations. This includes $75,000 for the construction of the asphalt humps, $55,000 for paint markings and warning signs, and $10,000 for traffic monitoring and public consultation. Funding is to be provided from (A5a), the Local Area Traffic Plans and Other Improvements program, subject to approval of the 2005 Streets Basic Capital Budget.
In addition to the capital costs for this project there will be maintenance costs associated with the signing and paint marking of the speed humps. Staff recommend that the Traffic Operating Budget be increased by $4,000 per annum, subject to review in the 2006 budget process.
CONCLUSION
Speed humps are an effective means by which to slow vehicles on local streets and the locations identified in this report are the highest ranking, highest priority locations, in accordance with the ranking system approved by Council in November 1999. Staff recommend that speed humps be installed in 27 locations, subject to resident approval. Staff will report back on any locations that are not approved by the survey and will monitor traffic on subject and adjacent streets.
