74-97 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.