Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout74-97 Ordinance AMENDEDRECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043 74.97 Amended -----------------19__ _ _-- Ordinance No.-- - -- --~------- -- ~ Passed- -- --- -- -- -- --- ------ An Ordinance Amending The Annual Appropriations Ordinance For The Fiscal Year Ending December 31,1997 WHEREAS, Section 5705.40 of the Ohio Revised Code allows for supplemental appropriations to be made to an appropriations measure provided sufficient resources are available; and WHEREAS, City Council has been provided with traffic studies indicating that excessive traffic speed and above average cut-through traffic occur along Monterey Drive, Waterford Drive, and Longbranch Drive within Waterford Village; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that recent enforcement efforts have proven to be only a temporary method to reduce traffic speed and volume in the affected area; and WHEREAS, City Council wishes to experiment with the installation of temporary traffic calming devices in the form of speed humps for a period of 12 months in order to assess their effectiveness to reduce traffic speed and cut-through traffic volume within Waterford Village and to assess the acceptance by the affected residents of such devices and their associated signage, WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the annual appropriations measure to provide funding for the installation of the temporary traffic calming devices. NOW, THEREF RE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring that: Section 1. That there be appropriated from the unappropriated balance in the Capital Improvements Tax Fund the amount of $12,000 to account 40-03-14-2550 for the purpose of installing temporary traffic calming devices in the Waterford Village area. Section 2. That this Ordinance shall take and be in force in accordance with Section 4.04(a) of the Dublin City Charter. Passed this / % ~ day of , 1997. Mayor -Presiding Officer ATTEST: ~,. Clerk of Council T:\PER\DKP\97\074-7-MG.WPD o/~r~re posted in the I hereby certify that copses of this Ordn~~~z~ ~~.'.. = it of Dublin in accordance wits Section 731.25 cf t!:~ ~'° Revised Code. Cy ~- icil, Du i ,Ohio ~s~ Clerk f C r r v Monterey Drive Traffic Study Prepared For: City of Dublin Prepared By: Traffic Engineering Services, Inc. Updated May 1997 C irr ~. ~; i w ~. ~- ~u ~. E Table of Contents Background "After" Study Results Speed Humps Crosswalk Analysis Stop Signs Appendix Traffic Counts Speed Study 1 3 7 18 19 BACKGROUND ~'"""' In November of 1996, Traffic Engineering Services, Inc. (TES) prepared a study for the City of Dublin to analyze the complaints relating to cut-through traffic on Monterey Drive. At the time of the Study Dublin Road was closed just south of Waterford Drive. The study concluded that some of the cut-through traffic was the result of the road ~" closure. One of the recommendations of the study was to re-evaluate conditions after Dublin Road was re-opened. Since that time the City and the residents have had discussions on several items relating to this issue. the residents have submitted a specific proposal relating to the placement of speed humps. . !~ The residents also requested that the crosswalk at Odessa and Monterey be removed or ~,,,. relocated. The city staff has indicated that they would like to place traffic control devices in accordance with the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices; a document based on ~"' Section 4511.09 of the Ohio Revised Code. Using mid-block stop signs to control ~+ speeds is not in accordance with these documents. Both of theses items require analysis. This report presents the results of the "after" study relating to the cut-through traffic after Dublin Road is re-opened. The study also addresses the additional issues described above. ~, "AFTER" STUDY RESULTS Figure 1 shows the area of the original study and the location where Dublin Road was closed. Figures 2 through 4 compare the traffic volumes at various locations with and without the Dublin Road closure. The volumes shown do not reflect seasonal adjustments which would be minor (.94 and .96 vs..90). ~''"" When the total number of vehicles entering and leaving the study area (24 hours) is compared, the results show that after Dublin Road was re-opened the total traffic was reduced by about 18%. For the AM and PM periods, the reduction in traffic after the Dublin Road was re-opened, was 21% and 16% respectively. This corresponds closely ~, to the estimate of 20% in the November 1996 report. Based on the new traffic the estimate of cut-through traffic is now about 30% as compared to 42% when the Dublin Road was closed. A speed study was also conducted after Dublin Road was re-opened. The speed were ""' essentially unchanged. The appendix of the report has a graph of the comparison of the before and after speeds. In summary it can be said that the opening of Dublin Road reduced traffic in the ~"" neighborhoods by about 18% and had a negligible impact on the speeds. At the present ~ time the estimated cut-through traffic is about 30% of the total traffic entering and leaving the subdivision. ~,,,, Based on the experience of existing speed hump installations, it is estimated that the installation of speed humps could reduce the 85th percentile speed from about 33 MPH to about 27-29 MPH. Traffic volumes should also decline but the magnitude of the decline ~ , is somewhat speculative. Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 2 r, r. ~rw ~* rl !~ r~ \~r ~i~ Joy 0 ~~I' I BRIDGE ST. _ ~~ a LEGEND MONTEREY DR. FIGURE 1 TRAFFIC STUDY Study Area PREPARED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-3 `w ~"' ~r w I~" fir. i. ~n `. w r. 1~' I :~; Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-4 y ~" In wr. ~~ ~. ~- ~. ~- ~. ~. ~- , r' BRIDGE ST. -~ N ~~ o ~^ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-. ~ ~ ~ r Joy 0 ~~~' LONOBRANCN DR •-71(60) 4(5) -• MONTEREY DR. TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. LEGEND ~-000 AM PEAK HR VOLUME 000 -- (000) AFTER STUDY FIGURE 3 700-800 AY TRAFFIC VOLUYE8 Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-5 irr I~Ir ~_ ~. 1r,. rr ~" 1w ~~ ~II \\ BRIDGE ST. ~ I -~ ~~ w^ o r~. ~ J g $ I~. ~ W M I x Jo~ 1sl ~o LON08 H DR ~-23~3~ 58(57) -• MONTEREY DR. TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED 8Y: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. LEGEND ~-000 pM PEAK HR VOLUME 000 -- (000) AFTER STUDY FIGURE 4 500-8.00 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-6 U J ~ ~ Z ~ ~ D W „8lX„8l O ~ dW ~ ~~~-MO ~ W ~=Z ~ ~ '' H d w ~ V p W ~ Z /1~ ~W~ W ~ ~Q ~z V_ d J ~ ~ ~ m c~ ~BZf'«MO ~ N ~ Z ~ o w W Q U ads H`d N p ~ w~ SdW(1H T ~ a~ z ~ H ~~ 033dS w O O \\ „0~'X„ f~Z 0 l -Zl 5Z T ~~ ilwn a33dS w O O \\ 0~'X, 0~' HUM P Z9 -M T w-s2 d W n H ~ 30'X30" ~~ ~~ _~ OQ "~ 0 J ~I ~ N W ~ ~ 0~'X, 0~' ~ HUM P ~ Z9 -M dWnN ~ w-s2 ~ 30"x30" O SPEED LIMIT ~ 25 R-10 24 'X30 " w O ~\ SPEED 1 HUMPS AHEAD CW-328 p 30 "x30 " 25 M P H OW-143 18"X18" U O 0 c 0 ~, SPEED HUMPS ~ The residents have had discussions with the City staff regarding the installation of speed humps. The several cities throughout the country including the City of Columbus have been very active in traffic calming and have installed speed humps as a way to control speeds and cut-through traffic. Reaction to their effectiveness has generally been positive. Most cities have developed general policies and procedures on the subject of speed humps. These include warrants for when they will be used, guidelines for their location, and standard drawings for the placement of associated signs and pavement markings. Figure 5 shows the installation detail used by the City of Columbus. Figure 6 shows a y perspective view of the speed humps, signs and pavement markings. Below is a photo of ~ atypical speed hump installation. The purpose of the warrants is to establish criteria to manage the installation of speed humps. The current feeling among experts is that the details of the warrants are not that important. However, if a precedent is set without some kind of criteria, requests for speed humps could become unmanageable. There are several issues involving placement which must be addressed. The first is spacing of the humps. The City of Columbus guidelines indicate the humps should be spaced between 150 feet and 400 feet apart.. The ideal spacing is between 250 feet and 300 feet. If the humps are spaced too far apart, they give the opportunity for a vehicle to travel faster than 25 mph between humps and thereby not establishing consistent speed control along the street. Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 7 C ~"' MONTEREY DR. FIGURE 6 ,, TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. TYPICAL 8PEED HUMP ELEVATION 8KETCN Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-9 it When deciding the exact location of the speed humps, physical features of the roadway should be taken into consideration. For example, speed humps should not be placed over manholes, near fire hydrants, or on sharp horizontal curves. They should be 5-10 feet from driveways and at least 75 feet from intersections. Because of the poor aesthetics that result from the associated pavement markings and signage, speed humps should be placed as close to property lines as possible. All of these factors affect the exact dimension of the spacing but the general guidelines should be adhered to as much as practical. In order to convey proper warning of the speed humps, the City of Columbus has provided a standard drawing of pavement markings and signage associated with speed humps. At the beginning of each street which has speed humps, there is an advanced ~" warning sign with a speed limit plaque. In addition there is a regulatory speed limit sign about 100 feet behind the advanced warning sign. At each speed hump, there are "BUMP" signs provided for each direction. The speed hump is striped out with 10 inch ~" white stripes parallel to the edge of pavement and spaced 5 feet apart. These details are shown in figure 5. In conversations with staff members involved in traffic calming for the City of Columbus, they have indicated that they have not had any complaints about drainage. The speed hump installation tapers down to the gutter and does not extend past the gutter allowing the water to flow in the gutter unobstructed. Another issue is whether speed humps inhibit emergency vehicles. The City of Columbus has not received any complaints about the speed humps with regards to emergency vehicles. They indicated that a study was done in Portland, Oregon on how speed humps delay emergency vehicles. The results of this study was that the delay was between 3 and 10 seconds per device. The smaller vehicles such as ambulances were at the lower end of the range. Conversely, larger vehicles were delayed at the upper end of the range. Figures 7 through 9 show the locations proposed by the residents for speed humps and figures 10 through 12 show the placement of the speed humps based on the criteria in figure 5. If the City proceeds with the installation of speed humps they should be installed in accordance with the guidelines and according the general locations shown on figures 10 through 12. The even spacing is necessary to achieve the general objectives of speed hump installations. The exact location can be adjusted to account for property lines and driveways as discussed above. In no case should speed humps be installed within the limits of an intersection. Speed humps in intersections could make a turning vehicle more difficult to control, especially when the roadway is wet or icy. The installation of speed humps on Longbranch Drive is of questionable value since speed humps are usually not recommended for street " segments this short. Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 10 t The cost of speed humps is a consideration since each speed hump costs about One "~" Thousand ($1000) Dollars to construct using bituminous asphalt. Other materials would ~" be even more expensive. The signs and pavement markings add another Four Hundred ~ ($400) Dollars. Based on these number the cost of installing the speed humps as recommended in figures 10 through 12 would be Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred r. ($22,500) dollars broken down as follows: Waterford Dr. $7,500 Montery Dr. $12,000 Longbranch Dr. $3,000 Unless criteria are established the potential cost of speed hump on a citywide basis could easily be several $100,000. It is recommended that the city establish a policy for the installation of speed humps to manage installation, liability and the appearance of the neighborhood.. r Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 11 r ~" w ... ~. ODESSA LA. BECKLEY LA. WATERFpRD DR \\ ~~~' )~ "r SEE FIGURE 5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS MONTEREY DR. FIGURE 7 TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. MONTEREY DR. RE8IDENT8 PROP08ED 8PEED HUMPS Monterey Dr. Troffic Study-12 ~" w ~* r- w.r t~, `. ~~ ~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ '°o ~s9S i OR• ' y ~° ~~~ dW,~y \\ v ~ $~: y s ~~ \~ ~G OZ n~ ~ ~~ _ ;~ 03.E ~ ~~ _ ;R LONGBRANCH DR _ _ m ~ o ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ SEE FIGURE 5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS MONTEREY DR. TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. FIGURE 8 MONTEREY DR. AND LONaBRANCH DR. RE8IDENT8 PROP08ED SPEED HUMP8 Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-13 ~. ,.e `. Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-14 C C !~"" A" ii. r.+. e ~, "" i i. ~~°' r ~" ~r u• ~w+ Dior ar3Hr WATERFORD DR. sd-rnH 033dS ~4r ary~y • STONE~yALI CT. HEMP ~bg;~., ~'$~ d ~~ti GLEN MEADOW CT. • y~'~A *~,. ,~. ~~ dW,~y ODESSA LA. y~Mp ~`:~ .~r.o>; L9-M dW(1H HUMP w-ss .w =so• BECKLEY LA. .~;a,. ~, dW~H HEMP F c~, ~F~ O,Q MONTEREY DR. TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. SEE FIGURE 5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS FIGURE 10 MONTEREY DR. PROP08ED SPEED HUMP8 Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-15 i ~s9, Z ~ Oft. ~ - RE'~ s MONO ~ ~o . y ~ ~~ -~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ti /. ti~ ~.~ ~i ~~ ~~ s~ o~ s ~~ \~ a ~o ~~ ~~ !~ _ ;~ o~ ~~ _ ;~ LONGBRANCH DR =N = _ ~ v MONTEREY DR. TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. SEE FIGURE 5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS FIGURE 11 MONTEREY DR. AND LONGBRANCH DR. PROP08ED SPEED HUMPS Monterey Dr. Traffic Study-16 r~ !~" ~Ir r ~"'" tr iw ~. A ~. r" HIGH sue, ~~ a~ saw 033dS FRANK~~N ST ~9 - • a~'~~ .a:a ~ M dwnH ~~Q +~~ HUMP w_~ Y.~~ STONEFENCE ~~ M ~. dwnH 0 o o: 0 Q' W .~ : 3 dwnH HUMP w-Qj Jp +rJO• HUMP w_~ Jn;,p~• ,Nar dwnH HUMP w_~ ~i.1o- SPEED HUMPS SEE FIGURE 5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS MONTEREY DR. 'W~ o='~ MONTEREY DR. FIGURE 12 TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED Bv: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. WATERFORD DR. PROP08ED 8PEED HUMP8 Monterey Dr. Troffic Study-17 r CROSSWALKS The residents have requested that the existing mid-block crosswalk located on Monterey Drive at Odessia Lane be relocated to Stonewall Court. The existing crosswalk and curb ramp create an inconvenience because it is not possible to park on the street at the crosswalk location. The proposed location has no residences on the east side of the street and therefore would be less disruptive to the residences. The locations of mid-block crosswalks along Monterey drive is not consistent. There is even an area north of Stonewall Court where there is no sidewalk. Based on the information available there is no compelling reason why the crosswalk should be at this location except that it provides a more even spacing than if it were relocated to located Stonewall Court. If the crosswalk is removed the curb ramp should also be removed since it could create confusion if the curb ramp existed but parking was permitted in front of it. If the location is changed to Stonewall Court additional curb ramp work will be needed since there is no walk on the northwest corner of the intersection and the curb ramp on the east side of Monterey Drive aligns with the north side of Stonewall Court. In the final analysis it appears that there is no compelling reason to keep the crosswalk in its current location. On the there hand there is a question whether moving the crosswalk serves public need. C Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 18 A ~, r Stop Signs ~" When residents. notice traffic problems such as speeding or cut-through traffic in their ir. neighborhood, a common request is to install stop signs with the idea that they will reduce speeds and the volume of cut-through traffic. Though this is an inexpensive request, the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, ~"' as per the Ohio Revised Code clearly states on page 2-17, "Stop signs shall not be used .~ for speed control." ~`,,, A number of studies have been done to determine the extent stop signs are obeyed when there is a small volume of cross traffic. The results of these indicated that approximately j~,,,, 5 to 20 percent of drivers will make a complete stop, 40 to 60 percent will make a rolling stop (under 5 mph), while 20 to 40 percent will traverse at higher speeds.l Drivers who !~! are familiar with the routes they drive have good perception in regard to the danger of disobeying particular stop signs. It they do not perceive much danger in not stopping at a stop sign, they will to some extent disregard the sign. Since residential streets have low ~" volumes at generally lower speeds, the stop controlled intersections may not be perceived as dangerous, especially if enforcement is lax or nonexistent. Some additional studies have been performed to determine the effects of stop signs in neighborhood traffic control. As mentioned in the first report, the reason people cut- ~,~, through a residential neighborhood is because it saves time verses the congested streets in the arterial or collector system. If that time savings is large, the time lost stopping at stop signs will reduce the time saved but the route will still be faster than the alternative.2 ~. Stop signs have little affect on speed as indicated in Residential Street Design and Traffic Control published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ...~ ~ The general conclusion from numerous studies on effectiveness of stop signs as a speed control measure is that they have little overall effect on speed, except within approximately 200 feet (60 meters) of the intersection controlled. They are almost universally reported to have little or no effectiveness in controlling mean or 85th percentile speeds at mid-block. The paragraph goes on to mention that there is some evidence that stop signs are effective in slowing down the mid-block speed of the fastest vehicles (those above the 85th percentile speed). These few vehicles may be the ones that actually disturb the residents. This is possibly why stop signs are thought to be an effective speed control. Reaction to stop signs by residents is generally favorable. They are viewed as a solution to accident problems as well as effective at speed control.4 Furthermore, they appeal to pedestrians because the controlled intersection is perceived as safer to cross since traffic ~' theoretically must slow to a stop.5 An argument against this is that if there are adequate IWr gaps in traffic already, when a vehicle slows to a stop and accelerates the exposure time is actually increased. 6 Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 19 ~. Stop signs create negative reactions for residents at the intersections who are affected by the additional noise and for motorists who feel there is no purpose for stopping them. The latter of the two causes concern that unwarranted stop signs affect driver behavior at the subject intersection and other intersections in the community. Studies have been performed at intersections after the installation of stop signs to evaluate safety. The results varied as some of the accident rates increased, some decreased, and some stayed the same after the installation. According to the 7'ra~c Control Devices Handbook, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, an effective traffic control device accomplishes its intended purpose in the least restrictive maner.g Unwarranted stop signs are restrictive to drivers and result in frustration which can lead to a general. disrespect for trafllc control devices.9 It is difficult to determine what impact this disrespect could have on everyday driver behavior but is something that should not be overlooked. A result of all this could be legal implications. In an article in the January 19941TE Journal, Patricia Noyes states: ' "Variations from accepted warrants without documented exceptional conditions present potential liability concerns for the responsible jurisdiction. If a stop sign installation could be considered irresponsible or in clear contradiction to ' accepted standards, liability suits could result." i .,~..~ s r ~S S~ ~ , ~ + • ~ ~~ ~~~~ w~ a r, s". i w'~` ,z .,y~~ ~ ~~ Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 20 Installation of stop signs may seem like a simple and practical solution to common traffic problems which occur in residential areas. However, as shown above there are a variety of opinions and observations regarding their effectiveness and purpose. Stop signs placed in residential areas have a potential of being blocked by trees as the phograph above illistrates. Since the City has an obligation to maintain the visibility of stop signs, '" additional unwarranted stop signs create additional work and potential laiablility for the ~-• City. Because of the clear guidance the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (per the Ohio Revised Code) gives on this matter and for the reasons stated above it is clear that the city should remove all unwarranted stops signs. 1 Wolfgang S. Homburger, Elizabeth A. Deakin, Peter C. Bosselmann, Daniel T. Smith, Jr., and Bert Beukers, ITE Residential Street Design and Traffic Control (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989) 81. L Wolfgang S. Homburger, 81. 3 Wolfgang S. Homburger, 81. 4 Wolfgang S. Homburger, 82. 5 Wolfgang S. Homburger, 81. 6 Patricia B. Noyes, "Responding to Citizen Requests for Multiway Stops," ITE Journal 12 (1994): 45 7 Patricia B. Noyes, 45. 8 U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Control Devices Handbook, (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 1983) 9 Patricia B. Noyes, 47. s Monterey Dr. Traffic Study - 21 r, ~r y. APPENDIX ~. .. ,~, ~ o I ~ a~ a~ ~ Im Q ~... ^ ~ V 3 0 C~ G C d C ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~i- O ~ ~ N cam.. +~e Iw #1111 D ~ C ~ 7 ~ O Q. ~ N t 0 Z L L d C 0 -- - v . ~ av (V N r r sa~~iyan ;o a6e;ua~~ad v a~ O v 0 v M ch M i O ,..~ M = a m m rn ~ N ~ l! N N O N r r '(7 r r ,~. e,,.._. .»« Yw: wu~ wr nr +• U 3 0 R C~ G d ~ ~ O O ~ ~ '% O N N_ D~ C ~ 3 m ~ at 7 O L d L d ~+ C O C sa~~~yan }o a6e~uao~ad v a~ O v v 0 v M M C'7 M .~- 2 a d d ~ a N ~ N N O N r ct r ,.. ~w Titlel: Monterey Dr. N/0 Odessa Ln. r•+Title2: Title3: Direction: NB w,~ Site: 43002 Date: 05/01/97 File: [none] Begin Time Total 12:AM 2 "~"' 1:00 3 w 2:00 3 3:00 1 :00 0 .: 00 1 :00 5 :00 32 8:00 22 .~... 9:00 25 10:00 21 ""'11:00 46 w. 12:PM 54 ,.,, 1:00 30 2:00 34 "~' 3:00 39 4:00 91 5:00 180 6:00 70 7:00 52 ~^ 8:00 36 9:00 15 10:00 11 11:00 5 gaily 778 ,.,Total s rcent Total "°Percentile Speeds: 10 MPH Pace Speed: +® Number in pace % in pace aiw Speed Exceeded ~' Percentage Totals rr ~. rw 1-14 MPH 15-19 MPH 20-24 MPH 25-29 MPH 30-34 MPH 35-39 MPH 40-44 MPH 45-49 MPH 50-54 MPH 55-59 MPH 60-64 MPH 65-69 MPH 70-99 MPH Avg 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 3 5 15 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 29 0 1 2 13 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 29 0 0 5 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 1 7 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 2 5 17 16 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 31 1 1 13 19 14 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 0 0 9 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 28 0 1 6 12 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 4 2 11 15 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 26 1 4 11 40 20 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 2 21 85 60 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 2 0 11 24 29 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 1 10 19 19 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 0 4 10 16 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 2 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 8 23 133 320 230 42 12 1 2 2 2 1 2 28 1.0 3.0 17.1 41.1 29.6 5.4 1.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 10% 15% 50% 85% 90% 21.8 23.2 28.5 33.9 34.7 25 - 35 550 70.7 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH 1.3 0.9 0.4 10 7 3 ~3ANl1S File: MONNODES Printed: 05-02-1997 Page 4 ~,..~ .r Titlel: Monterey Dr. N/0 Odessa Ln. Site: 43002 ~itle2: Date: 05/01/97 fitle3: Direction: SB File: [none] w Begin Total 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-99 Avg Time MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH 12:AM 5 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 °~" 1:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 3:00 .~.: „ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 :00 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 :00 27 1 4 5 10 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 :00 114 2 7 34 54 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:00 93 2 12 23 47 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 err 9:00 35 0 3 13 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 10:00 25 1 2 8 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 •11:00 46 0 2 12 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 ~12:PM 59 1 7 15 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 ~ 1:00 59 0 2 21 29 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 2:00 38 0 2 9 21 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 ~+ 3:00 46 1 2 25 7 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 4:00 58 1 3 20 22 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 '""" 5:00 76 2 3 13 33 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 ~ 6:00 49 0 1 10 17 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 7:00 72 2 8 25 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 ..».8:00 43 0 4 15 17 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 9:00 23 0 1 3 13 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 ""'10:00 9 0 1 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 11:00 4 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 gaily 887 14 65 254 380 149 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Totals rcent 1.6 7.3 28.6 42.8 16.8 2.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total percentile Speeds: 10% 15% 50X 85% 90% 20.2 21.1 26.5 31.4 32.9 +tiw 10 MPH Pace Speed: 20 - 30 ~, Number in pace 634 % in pace 71.5 arr Speed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH ++^ Percentage 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals 0 0 0 a~. rr ~+JANUS File: MONNODES Printed: 05-02-1997 Page 3 Titlel: Title2: Title3: r. ,~„ Interval Begin 12:AM 1:00 2:00 . 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 '~'" 11:00 12:PM 1:00 2:00 '~°" 3:00 4:00 5:00 ~ 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 ~~ 10:00 ~, 11:00 Totals Split % AM Peak Volume ~`~" PM Peak Volume w w. rr rr ~"~`" , JANUS File: MONSBRID Monterey Dr. S/0 Bridge St. Site: Date: 05/01/97 File: [none] - SB - - NB - Day Thursday - COMBINED - 10 1 11 2 2 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 6 7 14 21 35 45 47 92 34 35 69 12 26 38 21 25 46 28 39 67 40 24 64 51 29 80 36 20 56 63 36 99 64 55 119 71 90 161 54 51 105 59 29 88 48 40 88 29 10 39 15 11 26 11 3 14 709 604 1.313 54.0 46.0 7:00 7:00 7:00 45 47 92 5:00 5:00 5:00 71 90 161 Printed: 05-n?-1997 Page Titlel: Monterey Dr. E/0 Frantz Rd. ~'"" Title2: Title3: Site: 430004 Date: 05/01/97 File: [none] Interval Day Thursday Begin - EB - - WB - - COMBINED - 12:AM 3 2 5 1:00 7 1 8 2:00 2 2 4 ,, 3:00 1 0 1 4:00 1 6 7 5:00 1 8 9 6:00 7 55 62 7:00 19 123 142 8:00 16 98 114 "°~ 9:00 20 52 72 °"~ 10:00 28 27 55 11:00 52 44 96 12:PM 69 56 125 .+~ 1:00 36 60 96 2:00 41 39 86 '~ 3:00 54 47 101 4:00 116 56 172 5:00 178 64 242 6:00 80 62 142 7:00 66 62 128 ~"' 8:00 44 40 84 9:00 42 26 68 10:00 14 9 23 ~,,, 11:00 11 3 14 Totals 914 942 1,856 Split ~ 49.2 50.8 AM Peak 11:00 7:00 7:00 Volume 52 123 142 PM Peak 5:00 5:00 5:00 ~w Volume 178 64 242 ~, w *~~"~ JANUS File: MONEFRAN Printed: 05-02-1997 Page Titlel: Waterford Dr. W/0 Dublin Rd. """ Titlel: Title3: Site: 43001 Date: 05/01/97 File: [none] ~,, Interval Day Thursday Begin - WB - - EB - - COMBINED - 12:AM 2 2 1:00 1 0 ~,~ 2:00 p 1 3:00 0 0 4:00 0 0 5:00 2 2 6:00 3 g 7:00 54 38 8:00 56 30 9:00 18 26 10:00 12 21 """' 11:00 22 37 12:PM 29 43 ~,,, 1:00 22 30 2:00 2s 27 3:00 21 5P 4:00 25 57 '~ 5:00 53 112 ~„ 6:00 32 44 7:00 31 P7 ~* 8:00 29 15 9:00 16 11 10:00 6 3 11:00 4 3 ~ Totals 466 589 ~~ Split ~ 44.2 55.8 AM Peak 8:00 7:00 Volume 56 38 ~`"" PM Peak 5:00 5:00 ~.. Volume 53 112 .~ w. rir ur ^w r oar w. '""" JANUS File: WATERFOR Printed: 05-02-1997 4 1 1 0 0 4 11 92 86 44 33 59 72 52 55 73 82 165 76 58 44 27 9 7 1.055 7:00 92 5:00 165 Page Site: 43003 Date: 05/01/97 File: [none] ,,,~ Interval Begin - EB - - WB - - COMBINED - Day Thursday 12:AM 2 1:00 0 2:00 2 _. 3:00 0 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 '~~ 9:00 10:00 `""" 11:00 12:PM ate. 1:00 2:00 '~ 3:00 4:00 5:00 ~. 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 ~+ Totals Split X AM Peak Volume '""` PM Peak Volume .~. rr ow. wr a~ rr ^w w 1 1 4 5 4 6 3 11 13 13 14 21 36 57 17 25 22 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 60 40 12 14 13 23 19 17 21 24 30 13 16 6 4 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 22 65 44 18 17 24 36 32 31 42 60 87 30 41 28 10 3 3 268 331 599 44.7 55.3 11:00 7:00 7:00 11 60 65 5:00 5:00 5:00 57 30 87 `~ JANII, File: LONGBRAN ~""+ Printed: 05 0. 1997 Pang ~r TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. 3011 BETHEL ROAD, SUITE 204 COLUMBUS, OH 43220 mw Site Code 00005297 Start Date: 05/02/97 File I.D. MON-WA2A Page 1 Movement 1 ""' Monterey Dr. Waterfo rd Dr. Monterey Dr. Southbound Westbound Northbound '~ Start Time Rsht Thru Left Raht Thru Left Raht Thru Left Total 7:OOam 0 8 3 2 0 11 4 8 0 36 ,,,,,, 7:15 0 5 1 2 0 11 8 6 0 33 ~,,M7:30 0 9 3 5 0 18 5 8 0 48 7:45 0 20 2 0 0 24 5 7 0 58 our Total 0 42 9 9 0 64 22 29 0 175 rand 0 42 9 9 0 64 22 29 0 175 *_- % of Total 0.0% 24.0% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% 36.6% 12.6% 16.6% 0.0% Apprch % 29.1% 41.7'/ 29.1% "~ % of Apprc h 0.0% 82.4% 17.6% 12.3% 0.0% 87.7'/ 43.1% 56.9% 0.0% ww r. irr rw "°~' TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. 3011 BETNEL ROAD, SUITE 204 ""~ COLUMBUS, OH 43220 Site Code 00050597 Start Date: 05/05/97 File I.D. MON-WT2P Page 1 ~,,, Movement 1 Montere y Dr. Waterford Dr. Montere y Dr. ro. Southbound Westbound Northbound Start ~,Jime Raht Thru left Raht Thru Left Raht Thru Left Total S.OOpm 0 9 4 7 0 8 28 20 0 76 n,,, 5:15 0 12 7 4 0 9 37 23 0 92 ,,,.,x,:30 0 15 6 0 0 8 14 10 0 53 :45 0 7 6 1 0 9 18 18 0 59 ~r Total 0 43 23 12 0 34 97 71 0 280 and 0 43 23 12 0 34 97 71 0 280 ~~ ~ of Total 0.0% 15.4X 8.2% 4.3X 0.0% 12.1% 34.6% 25.4% 0.0% ~pprch % 23.6% 16.4% 60.0% ~% of Apprch O.OX mw. 65.2% 34.8% 26.1% 0.0% 73.9X 57.7% 42.3% 0.0% ~, w~ ~w ar r~ MEMORANDUM To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager ~ ~~ Subject: Ordinance 74-97 I Date: May 15, 1997 Initiated by: Michelle L. Crandall and Balbir Kindra~7'~'l~CC Attached please find Ordinance 74-97 requesting the appropriation of $12,000 to be used for the installation of temporary traffic calming devices in the Waterford Village area. The following presents a summary of Staff and resident efforts to address traffic speed and volume along Waterford Drive, Monterey Drive and Longbranch Drive and Staff's recommendation for the installation of temporary speed humps in an effort to assess the effectiveness of such devices in the reduction of traffic speed and volume within this neighborhood. OV .RVI .W Over the past several months, at the request of Mayor Kranstuber, City Staff and several residents of Waterford Village have been discussing an on-going concern with excessive traffic speed and volume along Waterford Drive, Monterey Drive and Longbranch Drive. Several solutions to reduce the speed of vehicles along these streets have been attempted, including increased enforcement by the Dublin Division of Police and an effort by the residents to participate in a neighborhood enforcement program. A portion of the traffic volume was believed to be the result of the Dublin Road closing, and indeed the volume of traffic has been reduced somewhat following the re-opening of this road, as noted in the attached traffic study. However, the concern of residents in Waterford Village remains the increased speed, as well as cut-through traffic volume, to which enforcement efforts have offered only a temporary solution. As you may recall, in January, 1996, Staff recommended to Council the installation of temporary speed humps on Bradenton Avenue. However, this recommendation was made with caution, noting the possible liability issues associated with the installation of traffic calming devices. Since this time, the use of traffic calming devices throughout the country has become a more common method of addressing traffic speed and volume in residential neighborhoods and has proven not to be the significant liability concern it was once considered to be, as noted in the attached USA Today article. RECOMMENDATION On March 24, 1997, Balbir Kindra, Michelle Crandall and I attended a Waterford Village resident's meeting to discuss the use of various traffic calming devises on a trial basis. At this meeting, Staff received input from the residents and a request for the installation of speed humps. Staff is now recommending to Council the installation of several temporary speed humps. The recommendation for installing temporary devices is to permit Staff to assess their effectiveness in reducing traffic speed and volume, as well as to accurately assess the acceptance by the residents of such traffic calming devices and their associated signage. This would also enable the City to evaluate the usefulness of such devices in other areas of the City where similar problems with the combination of cut-through traffic and excessive speed exist. It is Staff's intent to avoid setting a policy precedent, which could occur with the installation of permanent speed humps. During the Waterford Village meeting, those residents in attendance suggested the locations they would prefer for placement of the traffic calming devices. These suggestions were passed on to Traffic Engineering Services, Inc. to include as part of a follow-up traffic study. As you may recall, the initial traffic study was completed in November, 1996 to analyze the amount of cut-through traffic and to assess average traffic speed along Monterey Drive. This follow-up study, which is attached, suggests the placement of 12 speed humps along Waterford Drive, Monterey Drive and Longbranch Drive at a total estimated cost of $22,500. Staff is recommending a modification to this proposal and is requesting the allocation by Council of $12,000 to be used for the installation of 5-6 temporary humps along one of the three affected streets. Such placement would be in line with the recommendations of Traffic Engineering Services, Inc., but would involve Staff and the residents working cooperatively to determine the most acceptable area for the temporary devices to be located. As is becoming common in municipalities using various traffic calming devices, Staff is also recommending the preparation of a policy governing future installation of speed humps and/or other traffic calming devices. However, the preparation of this policy should follow the assessment of the effectiveness and acceptance in Waterford Village of the temporary devices being recommended in this memorandum. Attached please find four articles relating to traffic calming devices from recent issues of the American Public Works Association Reporter , Governing Magazine, USA Today and The Dublin Villager. Also attached is a petition circulated to residents which contains signatures from approximately 75% of the residents of Waterford Village in favor of the installation of temporary speed humps.