Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

COMMENTS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER OF ENGINEERING SERVICES

COUNCIL POLICY

The Vancouver Transportation Plan emphasizes the need to mitigate the effects of traffic in local neighbourhood areas and indicates that the city’s traffic calming program will give priority to streets and neighbourhoods where traffic impacts are the most serious.

It is Council policy to implement diversionary traffic calming measures on a trial basis, with a follow-up survey, before making the measures permanent.

PURPOSE

On March 23, 1999, Council directed staff to seek public input on establishing a policy regarding the process and priorities for traffic calming plans. Appendix “A” contains the Discussion Paper that was presented to Resident Associations and the public for comment.

The purpose is to report on this Public input and recommend a process and method of establishing priorities for traffic calming plans.

BACKGROUND

Traffic calming involves slowing the speed or reducing the volume of vehicular traffic on neighbourhood streets to increase safety and livability in the neighbourhood. Traffic calming could include measures such as traffic circles, corner bulges, partial diverters, diagonal diverters, signs prohibiting a vehicular movement, street closures, and street narrowing. A trial program is currently underway to evaluate speed humps.

In the past, neighbourhood traffic calming plans were initiated on either a first-come, first-served basis, or were generated from Council initiatives such as Local Area Plans. Due to increasing demand for traffic calming, there is currently a backlog of neighbourhoods waiting for these neighbourhood traffic calming plans. A method of establishing priorities is required to ensure neighbourhoods are treated equitably and to ensure that limited staff and monetary resources are allocated where they are needed most.

CURRENT PROPOSALS

One of the major initiatives of the 1997 City of Vancouver Transportation Plan was to initiate a new public process for traffic calming projects based on priority of needs across the city. The Plan suggested local residential streets should be dealt with first, followed by collectors or low volume secondary arterials which are recommended for consideration for redesignation as collector streets. The Plan defines a local residential street as a street which is primarily residential and is used primarily by residents of a neighbourhood. A collector
street is defined as a street that collects traffic from local streets to access arterial streets. The 1997 Transportation Plan suggests that the priorities for traffic calming be based on objective criteria such as traffic speeds and volume.

There are two current processes for implementing traffic calming measures:
- a neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plan funded by the city; and
- the Local Improvement Program whereby property owners can petition to pay for a traffic circle or corner bulge traffic calming device.

The City has implemented a number of neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plans (e.g. West End, Strathcona, and more recently Clinton Park, South Kerrisdale and NE Kitsilano neighbourhoods). This process has been successful in that it examines the neighbourhood as a unit, thereby achieving a balance of traffic calming measures and neighbourhood accessibility. It is also highly interactive, building neighbourhood understanding and consensus. The biggest drawback to a neighbourhood based process is that it is time consuming, with typical plans requiring from two to three years to complete. For some neighbourhoods, the building of a consensus can be a difficult and slow process. This also requires substantial staff resources, thereby delaying the response to other neighbourhoods.

The 1997 Transportation Plan suggests that the City expand its approach to traffic calming to include a more timely process whereby an individual problem street or street segment involving a couple of blocks along a specific street is calmed using a solution such as a traffic circle which does not involve diversion of traffic to other streets. Recently, this approach has been used for several street segments such as traffic circles in Vancouver Heights, a raised crosswalk in Douglas Park and a chicane in Grandview-Woodlands.

In addition to a new system for establishing the priorities for traffic calming plans and a new process (street or street segment), the attached paper in Appendix “A” discusses the concept of defining the acceptable amount of traffic to be diverted to adjoining residential streets due to a traffic calming plan. The City would take corrective action, if acceptable levels of diverted traffic were exceeded.

In preparing this Discussion Paper, staff reviewed processes in neighbouring municipalities, in Portland and Seattle, and many other jurisdictions. Ideas from these reviews have been included in the Paper.

PUBLIC INPUT

The Discussion Paper that was distributed to the public is contained in Appendix “A”. Appendix “B” describes the process used to solicit public opinion. Appendix “C” contains the notes from the two Open Houses. Appendix “D” lists written responses to the Discussion Paper.

There were about sixty responses to the Discussion Paper. The low city-wide response rate could be due to the general or policy nature of the survey. Typically, residents are more interested in discussing their specific street concerns. Discussion about specific concerns also occurred at the Open Houses and the meetings with the Working Group and the Neighbour-to-Neighbour Association. From a statistical perspective, the survey results cannot be strictly applied and are used to provide general direction only; however, there are many good, detailed comments that contributed to the development of the program (see Appendix “D”). The following discussion focusses on specific parts of the traffic calming program. Residents have addressed the program as a whole, and commented on the parts. They support the traffic calming program, although the process may need some further refinement and fine-tuning.

DISCUSSION

Question #1 - Priorities:

The public strongly agrees that priorities for traffic calming plans should be based on objective criteria such as traffic speed, volumes, schools and other pedestrian generators.

It is recommended that priorities be established on a similar basis to the system which has been used successfully for many years in Portland. Staff gather street information such as speeds, volumes, school zones, pedestrian generators, greenway, bikeway and non-continuous sidewalk. This information is used to score the street and compare it with other streets. Streets with the most points are ranked the highest. Appendix “E” contains a sample score calculation. It is presumed that any city initiatives such as Greenways and Bikeways would include appropriate traffic calming. Traffic calming measures would also be reviewed as part of the city’s review / approval of new developments or redevelopments such as the Children and Women’s Hospital redevelopment. In addition, traffic safety issues around schools would continue to be dealt with by the existing School Traffic Safety Committee comprised of representatives from Engineering, Police and the Vancouver School Board. Also, specific safety issues would be dealt with through our stop-sign infill program and evaluations of the need for stop signs at specific intersections. It is further recommended that this system of establishing priorities be tried for a two year period with a report back to Council on experiences.

The current 1996-99 Capital Plan funding for traffic calming has been fully allocated. Staff resources are committed well into year 2000 on a number of ongoing projects (see Appendix “F”). Subject to the November 1999 Capital Plan plebiscite approval, a work plan of proposed traffic calming plans should be developed for Council’s review as part of the Year 2000 Capital Plan. Also, an educational package or brochure could be developed to explain the traffic calming process to the general public, and what they can expect from it.

Agreement and understanding of the process will be essential for dealing with requests from areas which don’t meet the criteria, and for calming fears from residents as traffic calming proposals are debated.

Question #2 - Process:

The public agreed strongly with the neighbourhood-wide process and the street segment process as described in the Discussion Paper. The support for the Local Improvement process was only marginal.

It is recommended that the process for traffic calming be expanded to include the street segment process for those situations where non-diversionary calming measures are proposed to deal with a very localized problem. It is further recommended that the street segment process be tried for a two year period with a report back to Council on experiences.

There was discussion about whether the Local Improvement Program should be expanded beyond only traffic circles and corner bulges to include other non-diversionary traffic calming measures (e.g. curb extensions, speed humps, median islands, two-lane chicane) for those streets that are so low on the priority that neighbourhood plans would not be expected for some time. There was no clear consensus on this issue. Given that there has not been a high demand by residents to pay for even the traffic circles or corner bulges, it is recommended that under the Local Improvement program, additional measures not be added.

Some jurisdictions have a “survey to proceed”. Before starting a traffic calming plan, this survey asks residents’ opinions about traffic conditions on the street, and whether they would like a traffic calming project to proceed. The project may only proceed if at least a certain percentage of the surveys are returned (30% in Portland or 50% in North Vancouver) and if a majority of those responses are favourable. In discussions with the Working Group and Neighbour-to-Neighbour Association, there was no consensus on whether to have a “survey to proceed”. It is suggested that a “survey to proceed” could be tried. The survey area would be the street identified as a priority for traffic calming, plus all the local, residential streets within at least one block radius and generally bounded by “arterial” or “collector” streets. 30% of the surveys distributed along these streets segments should be returned and the majority of these must agree to proceed with a traffic calming plan.

In discussion about the model for the development of a traffic calming plan, the options are:
- City Hall designs the plan and takes it to the neighbourhood; or
- a co-operative process whereby city staff facilitate the neighbourhood developing the plan with city staff consultation on appropriate / Council-approved traffic calming measures.

There was strong support for the neighbourhood developing the plan with facilitation by city staff, and this approach is recommended.

Question #3 - Who pays:

The public feels strongly that the city should pay. It is recommended that the city continue to pay for traffic calming plans where the cause of the problem is clearly identified as external to the community.

Question #4 - Traffic diversion:

The public agrees that a limited amount of diverted traffic to adjoining streets is acceptable in order to address traffic problems in the neighbourhood overall, with the condition that the city will monitor and take corrective measures if the allowable limit is exceeded. Portland defines the limit as an extra 150-400 vehicles per day depending on the prior traffic volume.

It is recommended that a limited amount of diverted traffic to adjoining streets be acceptable in order to address traffic problems in the neighbourhood overall, with the condition that the city will monitor and take corrective measures if the allowable limit is exceeded. It is further recommended that public acceptance of this limited amount of diversion be tried for a two year period with a report back to Council on experiences.

Question #5 - Survey areas:

There is a strong agreement by the public that the survey area for installing a non-diversionary traffic calming measure be defined as being one block from the intersection in which the proposed device is to be located. They also agree that the survey area for installing diversionary traffic calming measures be defined as the area which will be significantly impacted from the proposed installation of this calming measure.

There was much discussion by the Working Group and Neighbour-to-Neighbour Association about appropriate survey areas. There was no consensus.

It is recommended that the above be established as a guideline depending on the specific situation; however, survey areas would be established in consultation with the neighbourhood residents’ committee.

There was also discussion about surveying non-resident property owners. Portland does not in its surveys; however non-resident property owners are informed of the procedures that will be followed in approving a permanent project. It is felt that non-resident property ownersshould be mailed surveys for their input, especially for more restrictive, diversionary traffic calming plans. This procedure should be tried for two years with report back to Council on experiences.

Question #6 - Survey Approval Rates:

There was a mixed response on whether the approval rate of those responding to the survey should be 50%+, 60% or even greater than 60%. The majority of responses favoured a greater than 60% approval rate. It is therefore recommended that if the approval rate is less than 60%, the proposed traffic calming plan be revisited by the neighbourhood committee.

There was discussion about the response rate to these surveys. There was a concern that a small percentage of the neighbourhood could decide the outcome of a traffic calming plan. A counter argument is that the survey is a democratic process and if you don’t vote, you accede the decision to those who do vote. A suggestion was made that for a plan to be approved, 32% of the neighbourhood must respond. The 32% matches the turn-out at the last civic election. The response rate for recent traffic calming plans was 10% for N.E. Kitsilano, 27% for South Kerrisdale and 25% for Clinton Park. However, there was no consensus on this issue. It is difficult to define an appropriate response rate due to the different impacts of the proposed measures (diversionary versus non-diversionary) and the
distance from the measures. It is therefore recommended that at this time a required response rate not be set; however, in each case the response rate would be presented for Council’s information.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

The following summarizes the proposals for traffic calming:
1) priorities for traffic calming plans should be based on objective criteria such as traffic speed, volumes, schools and other pedestrian generators. Priority will be given to streets and neighbourhoods where traffic impacts are the most serious.
2) an educational package or brochure should be developed to explain the traffic calming process to the general public.
3) a “survey to proceed” should be tried.
4) the process for traffic calming should be expanded to include the street segment process for those situations where non-diversionary calming measures are proposed to deal with a very localized problem.
5) the neighbourhood should develop the plan with facilitation by city staff.
6) the city should continue to pay for traffic calming plans where the cause of the problem is clearly identified as external to the community.

7) a limited amount of diverted traffic to adjoining streets is acceptable in order to address traffic problems in the neighbourhood overall, with the condition that the city will monitor and take corrective measures if the allowable limit is exceeded.
8) the guideline for the the survey area for installing a non-diversionary traffic calming measure is defined as being one block from the intersection in which the proposed device is to be located. The survey area for installing diversionary traffic calming measures is defined as the area which will be significantly impacted from the proposed installation of this calming measure. Survey areas would be established in consultation with the neighbourhood residents’ committee.
9) non-resident property owners should be mailed surveys of the proposed plan.
10) if the approval rate for a traffic calming plan is less than 60%, the proposed traffic calming plan should be revisited by the neighbourhood committee.

CONCLUSION

Based on a survey of public opinion, Open House comments and discussions with a Working Group and Neighbour-to-Neighbour Association, it is recommended that the process and method of establishing priorities for traffic calming be approved as described in this report on a trial basis with report back on progress after two years.

_ _ _ _ _

APPENDIX “A” - DISCUSSION PAPER
Calming Traffic on Residential Streets: Some New Approaches
City of Vancouver February 1999

Vancouver City Council seeks input

This discussion paper is being distributed to the public by the City of Vancouver. Public input is sought on
how the City establishes priorities for neighbourhood traffic calming plans and the process for conducting

these plans. The public is asked to read this discussion paper, complete the survey at the back and return it in the pre-stamped envelope. Based on these comments, City staff will prepare a report back to Council with recommendations on the priorities and process for neighbourhood traffic calming plans.

Public Input

This discussion paper is being mailed to neighbourhood resident associations, members of resident committees that have recently been involved in traffic calming plans and residents that request a copy (contact Jim Hall at 873-7130 or jim_hall@city.vancouver.bc.ca). Public input is also being sought through a public information meeting which will be advertised in local papers.
Background

The City has implemented a number of traffic calming plans, generally conducted on a neighbourhood-wide basis (eg. the West End, Strathcona, and more recently Clinton Park and South Kerrisdale neighbourhoods). Improvements in the current process for these neighbourhood traffic calming plans are required to address concerns with timeliness and equity. Currently, these plans can take from two to three years to complete, require substantial staff resources and can be quite divisive for the neighbourhood.

Due to increasing demand for traffic calming plans, there is currently a backlog of neighbourhoods waiting for traffic calming. A method of establishing priorities is required to ensure neighbourhoods are treated equitably and that limited staff and monetary resources are allocated where they are needed most.
The issues identified for discussion in this pamphlet relate to:
- setting the priorities for initiating traffic calming plans;
- the process for implementing a traffic calming plan;
- defining the acceptable amount of increased traffic that could result on adjacent residential streets due to a traffic calming plan; and
- the survey areas and approval rates.
Your response and comments on the enclosed survey form are appreciated. Please complete the survey and return it in the pre-stamped envelope. Additional written comments may be enclosed.
If you have any questions or would be interested in joining a working group to review the details of the priority setting and processes as described in this discussion paper, please call Jim Hall at 873-7130 or e-mail jim_hall@city.vancouver.bc.ca.

WHAT IS TRAFFIC CALMING?

Traffic calming involves slowing the speed or reducing the volume of vehicular traffic on neighbourhood streets to increase safety and liveability in the neighbourhood. Traffic calming measures could include traffic circles, corner bulges, partial diverters, diagonal diverters, signs prohibiting a vehicular movement, street closures, and street narrowing. A trial program is currently underway to evaluate speed humps.

Traffic circle “calms” traffic.


Examples of these calming measures can be found in neighbourhoods which have already been traffic calmed such as the West End, Strathcona, Mount Pleasant, Shaughnessy, Grandview-Woodlands, and Kitsilano. Speed humps are being piloted in the Dunbar-41st-Marine Drive neighbourhood.

HOW ARE PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED FOR STARTING TRAFFIC CALMING PLANS?

Individual or group contacts by phone, e-mail, in person, or letter the Neighbourhood Transportation Branch at City Hall to describe a traffic speed or volume concern on their neighbourhood street.

City staff evaluate the concern. This would involve reviewing existing traffic data such as speeds,volumes and accidents, doing field checks, and acquiring more data which can provide a measure of the “before” condition in the event that calming measures are implemented.

Staff compare this traffic data to a set of guidelines which define an acceptable level of traffic on the various types of residential streets in Vancouver. Sidebar 1 provides information about these guidelines.

Sidebar 1. In Vancouver, it is suggested that a neighbourhood “local” residential street is characterized by:
- fewer than three police reported accidents per year or five accidents in two years;
- 85% of vehicles travel less than the speed limit; and
- fewer than 1,000 vehicles per day in single-family detached neighbourhood and 3,000 in a multi-family dwelling neighbourhood.

A higher level of traffic might be expected if the street is designated as a “collector” street or there are other trip generators within the neighbourhood, particularly nearby commercial areas.

In the past, neighbourhood traffic calming plans were initiated on either a first-come, first-served basis or were generated from City initiatives such as Local Area Plans. Due to increasing demand for these traffic calming plans, there is a current backlog of neighbourhoods waiting for a plan. Thus, priorities need to be established for traffic calming plans. To be equitable, priorities should be based on the criteria which objectively measure the problem. Problems identified by residents usually involve the speed and volume of the traffic on their street. Therefore, the proposed primary criteria for setting priorities are speed and volume.

The City of Vancouver Transportation Plan which was approved in 1997 reported that the Seattle and Portland approaches to traffic calming have been used successfully for a number of years. The City of Portland model for establishing priorities involves assigning each street segment a numerical score. Points are assigned on the basis of:
- speeds greater than 5 mph above the posted limit;
- volume of traffic per day;
- elementary schools on the project street
- pedestrian generators that result in a significant number of pedestrians on the street (such as parks, community centers, and high schools);
- designated pedestrian routes;
- designated bicycle routes;
- designated transit routes; and
- pedestrian facilities with no continuous sidewalk on at least one side of the street.

Traffic calming projects are selected from the street segments with the highest rankings.

The Portland model can be modified to suit Vancouver (eg. kilometres per hour instead of miles per hour, points if street adjacent to a Greenway or Bikeway).

DISCUSSION - Should priorities for traffic calming plans be established on objective criteria such as speed and volume of traffic?
Should the Portland model, as modified for Vancouver be used to establish these priorities?
Should priority be given to neighbourhoods going through City-initiated Local Area Plans or new developments with substantial traffic increases?
(See survey question #1 at back of paper).

WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING A TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN?

There are three possible processes for traffic calming depending on the problem and potential solutions:
- the Local Improvement Program;
- a “neighbourhood-wide” traffic calming plan; or
- a “street segment” traffic calming plan.

The Local Improvement Program is available for residents to pay for the cost of traffic calming measures when their street is not deemed to be a problem or they are very low on the priority list. A neighbourhood-wide plan is City-funded and is used when the problem is non-local, external traffic short-cutting through the neighbourhood or if the solution involves diversionary measures. A street segment calming plan is also City-funded and is appropriate if the problem is localized on a particular street segment and the solution involves non-diversionary measures.

All three process will be used in Vancouver depending on the traffic problem and potential solutions. The following describes each of these three processes and seeks input on ways to improve each process.

Local Improvement Program

“It’s like an Indy raceway out here with the traffic volumes and speeds; but the City says my street is a low priority. So what can I do?”

If the measured traffic volumes or speeds result in a low priority compared with other requests throughout the City, the property owners can petition through the City’s Local Improvement Program to pay for a traffic calming device such as a traffic circle or corner bulge. In this process, at least 2/3 of property owners must agree (by signing a petition) to pay for the traffic calming device at their cost.

DISCUSSION - Should property owners be able to get traffic calming measures by paying for their cost or rather, should traffic calming measures only be built where they are clearly warranted? (See survey question #2 at back of paper).
Neighbourhood-wide Traffic Calming Plan

“Okay, the City agrees I’ve got a traffic problem. How do we deal with this problem?”

Where the traffic volumes / speeds are a problem, the City may initiate a neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plan at City cost. For example, if the problem is non-local, external traffic short-cutting through the neighbourhood, then a neighbourhood-wide plan may be appropriate. The problem on the one street likely cannot be addressed in isolation from the other streets in the neighbourhood, as the problem is more widespread. Also, if residents on the one problem street want to install diversionary measures such as a street closure or diverter, then traffic would likely be diverted onto other streets. Again, a neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plan would be appropriate, so that impacts could be addressed in a coordinated way. This is a fairly long process as extensive neighbourhood consultation / consensus is required.

Figure 1 contains a checklist for a suggested process for a neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plan.

DISCUSSION - Is there general agreement with this process? Does it provide suitable public involvement? How can neighbourhood consensus be reached? Are there areas where this process can be improved? (See survey question #2 at back of paper).
The City pays for neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plans through Capital Plan funds approved by the electorate every three years during municipal elections. Should the City / all taxpayers pay for plans or should residents on affected streets pay? (See survey question #3 at back of paper)

Figure 1. Checklist for the process for a neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plan

meet with residents in the neighbourhood to discuss the nature of the problem and potential solutions. A residents’ committee would be struck to work with City staff.
the residents’ committee and City staff design a traffic plan.
sponsor an Open House to provide information on the Plan.
survey the impacted residents for their opinion.
meet with residents’ committee to discuss survey results and revisions (if necessary) to the plan.
survey again the abutting residents for their opinion of the changed plan (may be a sub-set of the neighbourhood which is most impacted by the changes).
report to Council for approval and funding authority.
inform the residents of Council action, next steps and timetable.
implement a six month trial of the plan.
measure the traffic impacts of the calming measures including the impacts on neighbouring streets to ensure traffic (above an acceptable amount) has not been diverted.
survey again the impacted residents for their opinion on the installed temporary calming measures.
report to Council on the trial (if the trial includes diversionary measures).
inform the residents of the next steps and timetable.
implement the plan on a permanent basis.

Street Segment Traffic Calming Plan

“I don’t want a process that involves the whole neighbourhood. It takes too long. The problem is only on my street and we should be able to do something fairly easily without impacting my neighbours’ streets.”

A review of successful traffic calming processes in Seattle and Portland determined that rather than neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plans, these cities initiate traffic calming on particular streets or street segments. Streets are chosen on the basis of a point-ranking system using criteria such as traffic speeds, volumes and accidents (see prior section on establishing priorities).

Vancouver could also use this process when the traffic volumes or speeds on a particular street have been identified as a significant problem and the recommended solution is non-diversionary calming measures such as traffic circles or corner bulges. In this

Landscaped corner bulge

case, the process can proceed in a more timely manner than a neighbourhood-wide plan.

Only immediately impacted residents are consulted because traffic diversion to adjacent streets would not be expected. For example, for a traffic circle at an intersection, only the residents within one block of the intersection would be consulted. However, trafficcounts would be done on adjacent streets to ensure there is no diverted traffic. If there is, calming measures could be initiated on those streets or the recently installed calming measure could be removed.

Figure 2 lists the process for traffic calming on a street or street segment at City cost.

DISCUSSION - Is there general agreement with this process? Does it provide suitable public involvement? Are there areas where this process can be improved? (See survey question #2 at back of paper).
As with neighbourhood-wide traffic calming plans, the City pays for street segment traffic calming plans. Should the City / all taxpayers pay for plans or should residents on affected streets pay? (See survey question #3 at back of paper)

Figure 2. Checklist for the process for a traffic calming plan on a street or street segment

meet with residents from the street to discuss the nature of the problem and potential solutions. A residents’ committee would be struck to work with City staff.

residents’ committee and City staff meet to design a preliminary traffic calming plan.

survey residents for their opinion on the preliminary traffic calming plan (either a vote or a request for comments back).

report to Council for approval and funding authority.

inform the residents of Council action, next steps and timetable.

permanently implement the traffic calming measures.

after six months, measure the traffic impacts of the calming measures including the impacts on neighbouring streets to ensuretraffic (above an acceptable amount) has not been diverted.
adjust calming measures if justified based on traffic impacts.
WILL TRAFFIC BE DIVERTED ONTO MY STREET?

Many residents are concerned that a proposed traffic calming measure on their neighbour’s street may result in traffic increases on their own street. Therefore, they may be reluctant to support the measures on their neighbour’s street and may request calming measures on their own street even though the measures may not be warranted. These concerns are valid and an approach should be developed to address these concerns.

The City could define an acceptable level of traffic diversion onto neighbouring streets, monitor actual diversion levels, and take corrective action if the acceptable levels are exceeded.

In Portland, the acceptable amount of increased traffic on adjacent residential streets due to a traffic calming plan is defined as an increase of 150-400 vehicles per day depending on the prior traffic volume. A street with very low prior traffic volumes could accept an increase of 150 vehicles per day while a street with 2,000 or more vehicles per day could accept an increase of 400 vehicles per day.

DISCUSSION - Should a guiding principle of a Traffic Calming Plan be that the traffic on a street be calmed without diverting any traffic to adjoining neighbourhood streets?
Or, similar to Portland, should an acceptable amount of increased traffic on adjacent streets due to a traffic calming plan be allowed (say, a percentage increase or an absolute increase of 150-400 vehicles per day), with the City monitoring and taking corrective measures if the allowable limit is exceeded?
(See survey question #4 at back of paper).

SURVEY AREAS AND APPROVAL RATE

Once a preliminary traffic calming plan has been developed, there should be a neighbourhood survey to find out how people feel about the proposal. There are two factors involved with the neighbourhood survey: the area surveyed and the approval rate.

The area to be surveyed should depend on whether the traffic calming measures being proposed are of a diversionary nature such as signs prohibiting a turning movement, diverters or street closures. If other, adjoining streets in a neighbourhood are likely to be impacted, then the residents on those streets should be given the opportunity to vote on the traffic calming plan.

An issue concerning survey approval rates is how many people are needed to approve a change. An approval response that is borderline, such as 51% of those responding, indicates the neighbourhood is very divided on the traffic calming plan.

DISCUSSION - Should the survey area for installing a non-diversionary traffic calming measure be defined as being one block from the intersection in which the proposed device is to be located?
Should the survey area for installing diversionary traffic calming measures be defined as the area which will be significantly impacted from the proposed installation of this calming measure?
(See survey question #5 at back of paper)

Should the approval rate for the traffic calming plan be 50% of those responding or a higher percentage such as 60%?
(See survey question #6 at back of paper)

| **********************************************************************
| CITY OF VANCOUVER - SURVEY RESPONSE FORM
| PRIORITIES AND PROCESS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC | CALMING PLANS
|
| Please return this survey in the stamped self-addressed envelope, or fax it to 871-6192. All responses will remain

| Name:____________________________________________________ Phone #: _______________
|
| Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________
|
| Resident Association Name: ______________________________________________________________________
|
| ***************************
| 1.Establishing priorities for traffic calming plans based on objective criteria such as traffic speed and volume is
| acceptable. Agree Disagree No comment
| I offer the following comments on the method for establishing priorities:
|
| ________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
| ________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
| ________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
| 2.Depending on the traffic problems and potential solutions, there are three methods available for initiating traffic
| calming plans (Local Improvement Program, Neighbourhood-wide Traffic Calming Plan or Street Segment Traffic
| Calming Plan). As described in the Discussion Paper,
| the Local Improvement program is good. Agree Disagree No comment
| It would be useful in my neighbourhood. Agree Disagree No comment
|
| I offer the following comments on the Local Improvement Program:
|
| ________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
| ________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
| As described in the Discussion Paper, the Neighbourhood Agree Disagree No comment
| -wide process is good
It would be useful in my neighbourhood. Agree Disagree No comment

I offer the following comments on the process for Neighbourhood-wide Traffic Calming Plans:
|
| ____________________________________________________________________________________________
|
| ________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. The City / all taxpayers pay for neighbourhood-wide and street segment traffic calming plans. Should this continue or should residents on affected streets pay?

4.A limited amount of traffic diversion onto adjacent streets is acceptable in order to address traffic problems in the neighbourhood overall, with the condition that the City will monitor and take corrective measures if the allowable limit is exceeded. This is acceptable for Vancouver. Agree Disagree No comment

5.The survey areas are dependent on the potential for diverting traffic onto adjacent residential streets. The survey areas as described are acceptable. Agree Disagree No comment

6.The survey approval rate of those responding should be: 50% 60% No comment

7. Please provide further comments on a separate sheet of paper.

PUBLIC INPUT

Public input on the Discussion paper was obtained via several means. Copies of the paper were sent to:
- Resident Associations, including an offer to attend one of their meetings to discuss the traffic calming issues presented in the Discussion Paper;
- neighbourhood committees that had recently been involved in a neighbourhood traffic calming plan (South Kerrisdale and Clinton Park);
- City of Vancouver Visioning committees in the Dunbar and Kensington / Cedar Cottage neighbourhoods;
- Vancouver Public Libraries; and
- citizens who requested copies.

Notices were placed in community papers notifying the public of two open houses at which theycould get copies of the discussion paper. The notices also invited the public to phone City Hall to get a copy of the discussion paper mailed out to them.

The City News brochure which was sent out to all property owners with their tax notices invited residents to offer their ideas on traffic calming.

Discussion papers were available at public counters at City Hall in Transportation and in the main foyer information kiosk.

A working group was established with those members of the public who expressed an interest in further involvement. Also, the Neighbour-to-Neighbour Association (an association of city-wide resident associations) requested further involvement. Several meetings were held with the Working Group and Neighbour-to-Neighbour Association to discuss in greater detail some of the issues.

OPEN HOUSES

Two Open Houses were held in June. Attendance at each was about twenty.

Generally, the majority were not in favour of traffic calming and wanted more emphasis placed on increasing the capacity and efficiency of the arterial roadway system. This is contrary to the 1997 Transportation Plan. However, the critical comments about traffic calming are useful in designing a process to address these concerns, where possible.

It was noted that participants wanted to speak more about specific issues and concerns that they had in their neighbourhood.

Comments included:

- too many cars - getting like Los Angeles
- eliminate all cars in the City
- allow cars to drive on alternate days depending on whether their license plate is odd or even
- don’t reduce the number of passengers allowed in HOV lanes
- concerned about the etiquette of drivers regarding pedestrians
- some participants believed that the level of aggressive driving in the City has increased to a level that it is no longer safe to walk or cycle on the streets. Safety for pedestrians and cyclists are concerns that were brought up
- peak fare rates are too high on transit

- avoid use of diverters for traffic calming
- give priority to traffic calming on residential streets adjacent to thoroughfares, especially serving commuter traffic from outside of the city
- traffic calming should not be allowed on streets with greater than 3,000 vehicles per day
- calm major streets such as Joyce

- process not open - small group met in secret - closed citizens’ committee

- residents should pay for calming measures
- shouldn’t have to pay for calming measures if problem external, such as short-cutters

- poorly distributed surveys
- need method to canvas neighbourhood to see if they want to do traffic calming
- people feel left-out of the process - more consultation - direct mail-outs
- roads are public, thus everyone should have input on a neighbourhood calming plan

- should have 2/3 approval rate for traffic calming plans
- 50% or 60% of all residents in the neighbourhood must approve the traffic calming plan; not just a % of those responding

- take out traffic calming measures
- don’t agree with traffic calming
- concern about emergency vehicle access through traffic calming measures
- too many stop signs, cars rolling through, especially at “t” intersections

- difficult to drive around in the City, need more arterial capacity
- motorists are becoming impatient and frustrated about the lack of capacity on arterial routes
- widen SW Marine to two lanes in each direction
- need more left-turn bays
- all left turn bays should have left turn arrows
- too many obstacles (e.g. lights) on arterials
- problem with traffic signals on 41st Avenue. Signals for eastbound/westbound traffic are not coordinated and are causing delays for motorists traveling on this road on a regular basis. The individual that brought this up during the meeting felt it was necessary to shortcut through neighbourhood streets to avoid the signals
- some did not agree with the development of more bikeways in the City. They compared growth rates of cyclists on the road with that of vehicles and concluded that our focus should be on the development of new roadways and not bikeways

TRAFFIC CALMING SURVEY RESULTS

1. Priorities

AGREED - 93% of those responding to this question agreed that plans should be based on objective criteria. Those that agreed commented as follows:

- on Charles speed is the first problem. The second problem is excessive traffic

DISAGREED - 7% of those responding to this question disagreed and commented as follows:

2. Local Improvement Program

AGREED - 63% of those responding to this question agreed with this program. Comments were:

DISAGREED - 37% of those responding to this question disagreed with this program. Comments were:

2. Neighborhood-wide Process

AGREED - 90% of those responding to this question agreed with this process. Comments were:

DISAGREED - 10% of those responding to this question disagreed with this process. Comments were:

2. Street Segment Process

AGREED - 74% of those responding to this question agreed with this process. Comments were:

DISAGREED - 26% of those responding to this question disagreed with this process. Comments were:

3. All taxpayers pay

79% of those responding to this question supported the City paying for these calming measures, while 15% felt costs should be shared (City and residents), 4% felt residents on affected streets should pay and 2% suggested alternate funding such as ICBC or a tax on fuel. Comments were:

4. Traffic diversion

AGREED - 73% of those responding to this question agreed with this proposal. Comments were:

DISAGREED - 27% of those responding to this question disagreed with this proposal. Comments were:

5. Survey areas:

AGREED - 76% of those responding to this question agreed with the proposed survey areas. Comments were:

DISAGREED - 24% of those responding to this question disagreed with the proposed survey areas. Comments were:

6. Approval rate - 50%

47% of those responding to this question agreed with a 50% approval rate. Comments were:

6. Approval rate - 60%

47% of those responding to this question agreed with a 60% approval rate. Comments were:

General comments:

7. Further comments

PROPOSED FOR VANCOUVER - SAMPLE SCORE CALCULATION
Using a Modified Portland Scoring for Local Service Streets
Vanness Avenue 3400 block

Raw Data (Measured on two separate occasions)
Sample size = 98 vehicle speeds
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume = 3000 ADT
85th percentile speed (calculated) = 52.2 km/h
Design speed limit = 40 km/h

Description Points
Primary Score
Speed Points (convert to imperial: speed limit 40 km/h = 25 mph,

Assign 5 points for each mph in excess of 5 mph over the speed limited.
(32.4 - (25 + 5)) x 5 = 12
Volume Points (ADT/100 = 3000/100) = 30
Subtotal = 42

Secondary Score
Additional Speed Points for excessive speed (based on percentage of
vehicles travelling over 16 km/h beyond the design speed of the hump
i.e. percent travelling>40 + 16 km/h = 56km/h) : 8% = 8
Score 5 points for each school zone (maximum 10) 0
Score 5 points for each pedestrian generator (maximum 15) 10
- Count SkyTrain Station/bus loop and retail area as two ped generators
Score 5 points if adjacent to a Greenway (is part of the BC Parkway) 5
Score 5 points if the street segment is part of a Bikeway 5
Score 5 points if the street segment lacks a continuous sidewalk 5
Subtotal = 33
TOTAL SCORE (Primary + Secondary) = 75

NEIGHBOURHOOD TRANSPORTATION BRANCH
WORK-IN-PROGRESS

A. TRAFFIC CALMING PLANS:

Arbutus Lands Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Plan
Cambridge Street Traffic Calming Plan
Children & Women’s Hospital Traffic Calming Plan
Clinton Park Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Plan
Dunbar-Marine Drive Triangle Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Plan
Earles Street (41st / Kingsway) Traffic Calming Plan
Kerrisdale South Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Plan
Kits Point Access, Traffic & Parking Plan
Marpole West Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Plan
Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Plan
Napier Street (east of Victoria Drive) Traffic Calming Plan
NE Kitsilano Traffic Calming Plan
Prince Edward Street (41st to 33rd) Traffic Calming Plan
Semlin Street Traffic Calming Plan
Wall Street Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Plan

B. BIKEWAYS:

Lakewood North
Mosaic
Ontario Review
Pacific Boulevard
Pender Street
Portside
Seaside (west of 1st Avenue)

C. GREENWAYS:

Ridgeway East / West

D. OTHER PROJECTS:

Speed Hump Pilot Project
Trans Canada Trail
40 kph Speed Limit on Residential Streets

B. SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING PLANS

(Depending on the results of field evaluations, these could be other neighbourhood traffic calming plans or a street segment calming plan)

Dunbar - City Plan Visioning Kensington / Cedar Cottage - City Plan Visioning
Hastings/Pender/Turner Douglas Park - 16th / King Edward, Oak / Cambie
41st / 49th, East Boulevard / Cypress Kerr. West - 41st / 49th, Blenheim / West Blvd.
16th / King Edward, Cambie / Main King Edward / 33rd, Cambie / Main
57th / Marine Drive, Cambie / Main E 59th / SE Marine, Knight / Argyle
49th / 57th, Main / Fraser 16th / King Edward, Main / Fraser
Broadway / 12th, Fraser / Clark Drive Broadway, Grandview / Nanaimo
Kingsway / King Edward, Fraser / Knight 4th / Broadway, Alma / Macdonald
Mackenzie / 45th St. Catherines / 19th
Hastings / 1st, Commercial / Nanaimo 6th / Broadway, Oak / Cambie
13th /16th, Laurel / Heather around 9th and Trimble
Broadway/12th, Clark/Commercial

C. REQUESTS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING DUE TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT SPEEDING

There are about 300 streets that residents have identified as having speeding problems and staff have investigated. The solution to these speeding concerns could include:
- speed humps which are being tested in several locations in the City (e.g. Carrington Street and Fremlin Street adjacent Oak Park); or
- a 40 kph speed limit on residential streets (currently being reviewed by the Provincial Government).

* * * * *

tt991102.htm

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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver