Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO: Standing Committee of Council on Transportation and Traffic

FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT: Results of the Speed Hump Pilot Project

RECOMMENDATION

COUNCIL POLICY

The City of Vancouver Transportation Plan (1997) directed that the City’s traffic calming program be expanded to include a greater range of measures.

On March 3, 1998, Council approved the installation of speed humps on a trial basis and requested that staff monitor the results of the trial and report back.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of the speed hump pilot project. The results of this project will determine how speed humps are used in the City of Vancouver. For a full, comprehensive technical review of the project, please refer to the supporting document, The Speed Hump Pilot Project in the City of Vancouver, (on file in the City Clerk's Office - limited distribution) and available in the General Manager of Engineering Services' office.

BACKGROUND

For the purposes of this trial, speed humps were installed on three street segments and in one area infill. Speed, volume and noise measurements were taken before and after the humps were installed in order to determine their effectiveness. As another measure of their acceptance, residents and other stakeholders were surveyed on their opinions of the humps. See Section 1.1 of the supporting document (on file) for a full description of the methodology used in this trial.

The street segments were chosen based on an objective ranking process modified from a successful program in Portland, Oregon. The ranking scheme considers vehicle speeds, traffic volumes and proximity to pedestrian generators, schools, greenways and bikeways. A sample calculation of a street segment is contained in the supporting document (on file) as Appendix A. Speed humps were installed on Adanac Street (from Renfrew to Rupert), Fremlin Street (from 59th to 63rd) and on Carrington Street and a portion of West 53rd Avenue. These segments represent the highest ranked 50 km/h street as well as the highest ranked time limited and 24 hour 30 km/h zones respectively. They were also installed in the Dunbar-Marine neighbourhood on five streets bounded by West 41st Avenue, SW Marine Drive and Dunbar Street. For a further description of the areas, refer to Section 1.2 of the supporting document (on file).

There were two designs tested in this trial, one for 30 km/h speed zones and another for 50 km/h speed zones. The speed humps for the 50 km/h speed zones were designed for 40 km/h to reflect the City’s intention to lower the speed limit to 40 km/h on local neighbourhood streets. The designs are explained in greater detail in Section 1.3 of the supporting document (on file).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of speed humps is to reduce vehicle speeds, and this trial indicated they were successful. Speeds on the trial streets were reduced by an average of 11 km/h. Figure 1 shows the reduction in 85th percentile speeds (the speed at which 85% of vehicles are traveling at, or below) on each of the street segments. For a complete analysis on the effect of speed humps on vehicle speeds, refer to Section 2 of the supporting document (on file).

Figure 1: Change in Vehicle Speeds as a Result of Speed Humps

Additional measurements were taken to determine the effects of speed humps on traffic volume and noise. In all cases except Adanac, volumes were not affected by the installation of speed humps. Noise measurements were taken as a response to concerns that speed humps would increase traffic noise. All of the noise measurements taken indicated that noise actually decreased at the locations of the humps. The volume and noise results are summarized in the supporting document (on file) in Sections 3 and 4, respectively.

Public consultation was an important element of this pilot study. Residents in the areas surrounding each of the streets with speed humps were surveyed before and after the speed humps were installed. They were asked if they supported the installation of speed humps and what they thought about how effective they were and how they should be funded in thefuture. The response rate to the surveys, as well as the support rate for the humps, were high at both stages of the study (see Table 1). Respondents felt that speed humps lowered speeds, volumes and noise. When asked about funding, respondents indicated that they thought the City should pay for speed humps when there is a measurable speeding problem. The details of these questions are explored in Section 5 of the supporting document (on file) and a sample of the survey is given in Appendix H of the supporting document (on file). The comments received from the surveys are listed in Appendix A of this report.

 

Total Respondents

Number of Surveys

Response Rate

Total Yes

Support Rate

Before Hump Installation

54

133

41%

46

85%

After Hump Installation

122

273

45%

108

89%

Overall Totals & Averages

176

406

43%

154

88%

Table 1. Survey Response and Support Rates

Risk Management and Fire and Rescue Services both identified potential problems prior to the start of the pilot study. Risk Management was concerned about the possibility of liability claims as a result of motorists traveling over the speed humps. There have been no claims involving speed humps since their installation over a year ago. The concern of Fire and Rescue Services was over the possibility of increased response times as a result of the humps. However, when they were consulted after the humps were installed, they were not as concerned about the humps on their own but rather when they were used in combination with other traffic calming measures.

ONGOING PROCESS

Prior to the start of the pilot, 81 street segments were investigated and ranked. Today, over 300 street segments have been investigated, ranked and added to a database that is continually being updated. Most of the streets are investigated as a result of a complaint received from a resident and the ranking process is a means by which streets can be objectively compared and prioritized for speed hump installation.

Once a street is identified as high ranking and having a speeding problem, it is still important to consult the surrounding residents prior to speed hump installation. Resident support is essential to success of any traffic calming program. Even though initial results show thatspeed humps are non-diversionary, it is the recommendation of this report that all residents within a one block radius be consulted prior to speed hump installation.

Since the start of the Pilot Project, when streets were first ranked, many residents have been waiting for a solution to neighbourhood speeding problems. Speed humps are a viable solution to these speeding problems. However, it is important that they are used effectively on streets with measurable speeding problems. There is a cost associated with the installation and maintenance of speed humps and they should not be overused.

Any speeding complaint that is received will be investigated by City staff. If the street has a measurable speeding problem, as defined in the ranking scheme, then it will be added to the list for speed humps and prioritized according to its ranking.

Speed humps should also be added to the Traffic Calming Tool Kit for use in neighbourhood traffic calming plans. In this case, streets for investigation would be chosen as per the boundaries of the traffic plan and speed humps will be used only on streets with a measurable speeding problem.

CONCLUSION

Speed humps are an effective means by which to slow vehicles on neighbourhood streets. In these carefully selected locations, they reduce speeds and noise, are non-diversionary, and received strong public approval. They will be a valuable tool for the Traffic Calming Tool Kit in suitable locations. They should be installed on the highest ranking streets first but not on streets without a measurable speeding problem. It is proposed that staff prepare an annual listing of the highest ranking streets, for review as part of the annual Capital Budget. In order to ensure a successful installation program, residents should be surveyed for their views and traffic volumes should be monitored for any significant traffic diversion.

_ _ _ _ _

APPENDIX A: SURVEY COMMENTS

Comments from Adanac Residents After Speed Hump Installation

I don't want to keep the speed humps because they didn't reduce speeds. Traffic noise was increased. I think the humps should be made higher or more should be added.

Speed humps have little or no effect on traffic patterns and should be removed.

The installation of the speed humps has been highly successful. It now feels like an inside residential street as opposed to a bypass to the highway. Excellent idea!!

I was unhappy when I heard the city was putting speed humps on my street but have changed my mind since they have been put in. There isn't as much traffic on our street, it is much quieter and we don't get the high school children speeding down our hill.

It is hard to assess the value of speed humps other than to say that they have reduced some of the late night speeders. Overall the installation of speed humps was a good move.

You should add a hump between the 2900 and 3000 block of Adanac to make the speed humps more effective.

In order to let drivers see the speed humps clearly, we suggest more lighting on the streets.

I disagree with the speed humps and do not know why they were put there in the first place. Speaking on behalf of most of the residents on the 3200 block Adanac, we would like to see them removed.

Speed humps have dramatically increased the safety for all of us (drivers included). We live near a school and before the speed humps we feared crossing the street with our children. We thank you for this improvement to our neighbourhood.

The speed humps have helped but a number of vehicles are not detered by them and continue to drive fast. It would be better if the speed humps were bigger.

Speed humps are a waste of money on the 3100 block of Adanac. We do believe that they are beneficial for the 2900 and 3000 block of Adanac.

I've lived on this street since 1951 and I wish I had the pleasure of speed humps at that time. A very good idea these speed humps.

Speed humps have been very effective at reducing speed and therefore noise. We highly recommend it for other areas.

Good to have them and hope they stay, especially considering that Adanac is supposed to be a bike route. However, I would suggest that the speed humps be the first part of a comprehensive traffic plan for the streets south of Hastings and N of Charles.

Speed humps are the only traffic calming installation that have worked so far. The problem on the so-called Adanac Bikeway is too many cars. Now we have too many cars that move a little more slowly.

I never wanted the speed humps in front of my house. I never agreed on putting it there. Ever since, cars have been very noisy which really disturbs me.

The installation of the speed humps has reduced shortcutting traffic dramatically on this street. It has however just moved it to Charles Street. Our street is quieter and safer as a result of speed humps.

Too much delay between construction and the painting/signing of humps.

Comments from Fremlin Residents After Speed Hump Installation

The speed humps have reduced speeds and noise on my street. I can only suggest that 1 or 2 additional humps be added. Thanks again.

I am impressed by your consulting process. It is very professional. How about speed humps on Park Drive between Oak and Fremlin? Youngsters also cross this street between parked cars to attend games in the park.

Although the average speed may be roughly within limits, I have a particular concern about the occasional driver who treats the side street like a drag strip. Speed humps discourage this and we are grateful. Thanks!

Comments from Humped Dunbar-Marine Residents After Installation

The speed humps are almost impossible to see when the sun is out and the leaves on the trees shadow them. The fallen leaves turned the white paint brown. There was an increase in vehicles slamming on their brakes. This was a waste of money.

The humps could be higher. Drivers go over them at highest possible speed before accellerating on to the next one - a pause to break slightly over - and so on - or maybe shorter distances between.

Bumps to slow to 40kmh are a way of enforcing the law, and should be allowed if residents want to pay. Thanks to City engineering staff for all their work on our behalf.

What about Marine Drive? If something was done to alleviate the horrendous traffic problem on Marine we wouldn't need speed humps in the area.

Since the installation of speed humps traffic now moves at a sensible speed for a residential area. We would be even more supportive if one was not outside our home (eyesore). Can you reduce the area that is painted white?(don't paint it yellow though!)

I want the speed humps removed because they probably devalue property by giving the impression that this is a high volume, high speed street (which it is not!).

The speed humps have a significant cautionary effect that has not been mentioned because it is not measurable.

Speed humps have been successful on Highbury St. Speeding has been mostly reduced - all regular users proceed at slower rates now.

Speed humps made a dramatic difference - especially from about 3 to 6pm. Thank you Neighbourhood Transportation Branch.

Since the installation of speed humps we have not seen anyone driving at an excessive rate.

Shortcutting continues to happen (UBC traffic). The original speed humps (before they were ground down) worked a lot better. The humps are spaced too far apart.

Our street had a very real problem to fix. Thank you for fixing it.

Now that drivers are familiar and have knowledge that there are speed humps, they automatically cut down their speed upon entering the street. 41st Ave has a very serious problem with regards to speed.

The speed humps have helped the shortcutting and speeding problems.

We are 3 houses from SW Marine and our noise problem originates from that street.

I'd have preferred the 'no left turn on marine drive' option. Why do the far fewer folks south of Marine Drive have so much clout when it comes to my neighbourhood?

Traffic is considerably slower going up and down our street which has reduced noise in the am and around dinner time.

Noise has increased. I would have prefered the diverter option.

Speed humps do nothing to reduce the volume off SW Marine. Perhaps if something was done to alleviate the congestion on SW Marine there would be no need to consider speed humps on the side streets. My neighbourhood resembles a parking lot.

I don't monitor the traffic on Wallace St, but it only takes one speeding car when children are playing. Regarding Part 4), each neighbourhood would have to weigh the cost against the potential hazard of not installing speed humps.

The speed humps have virtually eliminated the problem of UBC students 'rat running' up and down my street.

They are more of an impediment than benefit - moreover they are a complete nuisance. Please see fit to remove them. Thank you.

It is difficult to tell if the motorists have slowed down because of the humps or the 40km/h signs. Overall, noise is reduced in spite of the noise caused by vehicle shocks and acceleration between humps.

The problem of shortcutting ubc traffic is largely solved, as the speed humps slow them down or even dissuade them from driving down the street.

The speed hump pilot project has been successful, with a reduction in noise, speed and traffic volume.

The speed humps have cut down speeding of UBC traffic cutting from SW marine to 41st.

We are at the corner of Alma and SW Marine. Speed humps are not effective on Alma - they never were a necessity on this street. We were never bothered by cars driving north on Alma and then left onto 41st. Thank you for considering their removal.

The speed hump is immediately in front of my residence, which often results in clanging noise of autos which cross it too fast. The noise level has increased considerably. I don't think they help the real problem which is shortcutting UBC traffic.

I believe the speed humps at least call attention to drivers that they are on a residential street and should check their speed and use caution.

Reduce speeds on 41st Dunbar to Marine.

Less traffic after humps.

Humps have reduced speeds, volumes, trucks.

ATTACHMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE ELECTRONIC COPY ARE AVAILABLE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PURPOSE

* * * * *

tt991102.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver