May 16, 2006
SUBJECT: Canary Drive Traffic Calming-Deliberation of Additional Measures
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Canary Drive Traffic Calming project was initiated in 1999 with a permanent installation of “Stage II” hard-constructed improvements being made in March, 2003. Staff presented “after study” findings to the City Council on March 2, 2004 that determined the devices installed had reduced traffic speeds to acceptable levels per the City’s traffic calming policy.
Per the testimony of a group of residents at the March, 2004 meeting, Council directed staff to conduct additional public outreach and a neighborhood survey regarding installation of an additional speed hump or other devices. On February 1, 2005, staff presented Council the results of that investigation (RTC 05-016). The results indicated that 60% of residents and property owners opposed any further traffic calming, and further calming was technically not necessary. However, some residents continue to request additional traffic calming measures. Based on the testimony of residents who were present at the February 2005 meeting, Council directed staff to collaborate with the Canary Drive community residents to consider installation of an additional temporary traffic calming measure between two of the permanent, existing measures, at a cost not to exceed $5,000 and to return the remaining project funds to the General Fund. At the same meeting, the Council did not support the installation of an additional speed hump.
Staff conducted a process to evaluate viable alternatives that are consistent with Council’s direction and account for the range of concerns and opinions of residents. Two additional public outreach meetings were held by staff on September 26, 2005 and October 24, 2005 to present low cost methods. Staff presented a broad range of available, effective traffic calming measures within the constraints of the roadway configuration and budget. The meetings consisted of only eight attendees, and concluded with no consensus on low cost measures.
All eight attendees of the latter meeting strongly supported an additional speed hump. Staff, in response to concerns heard from some residents that are participating in the process, included a second hump as a possible alternative for the residents to choose in subsequent balloting conducted in February, 2006. City Council has already given staff direction that a second speed hump is not warranted; however, staff placed the additional speed hump option on the ballot to respond to the community input from the residents who attended the public meeting. The City Council has decided already that a second speed hump is not appropriate, but staff did not want to disengage those residents that continue to support that course.
Results from the February poll specified that once again, there was no consensus within the Canary Drive community.
At this time, staff asks that Council accept the original after-study results from the original installation and consider the Canary Drive Project a successful installation of traffic calming devices. Based on the fact that there is no consensus for further action, and almost no support for measures consistent with the most recent Council direction, staff recommends against any further action.
BACKGROUND
In February 1997, City Council adopted a traffic calming policy to address residential neighborhood traffic concerns and complaints (Attachment 1). The policy outlines the process and circumstances under which staff is to conduct traffic calming studies. It also delineates thresholds of significance to determine "real" rather than perceived traffic problems, and sets forth a variety of acceptable Stage I and Stage II traffic calming methods to mitigate issues which exceed acceptable thresholds. Stage I methods are generally comprised of studies, observations, education, public involvement, enforcement efforts, and changes in signing and pavement markings in an attempt to reduce the problem and improve the situation. They do not include the use of physical controls or impediments on the roadway system. Stage II methods are generally projects which physically alter the nature or configuration of a neighborhood street such as speed humps, traffic circles, diverters, chokers, or cul-de-sacs. The City's policy outlines an extensive community outreach and participation process for Stage II actions. Studies are initiated on a first come, first served basis, although many studies overlap due to varying conditions and complexity.
In October 1999, City staff received a letter from residents of Canary Drive expressing concerns over the speed of traffic on Canary Drive between Inverness Avenue and Homestead Road. During the initial discussion with residents, they indicated that they desired the City to conduct a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study on Canary Drive for possible implementation of traffic calming measures.
Initial studies indicated that Canary Drive did experience speeds and traffic volumes in excess of the established City traffic calming thresholds and as cited by residents and property owners. Therefore, the street qualified for the implementation of traffic calming measures.
Immediate actions were taken as follows: additional speed limit signs and legends were installed, the City’s radar speed trailer was deployed to the neighborhood, and additional traffic enforcement was provided by the Department of Public Safety.
Several neighborhood meetings were held, and surveys and letters were mailed to all residents and property owners throughout the course of the study, to involve them in the progress of the traffic calming study.
As a result of initial meetings, staff and the neighborhood residents/property owners agreed on the installation of a double yellow centerline stripe as a Stage 1 traffic calming measure. Follow-up studies showed a slight decrease in the volume of traffic and in the 85th percentile speed after the installation of the centerline stripe, but the data still indicated that the street qualified for additional traffic calming measures.
Staff and the neighborhood residents/owners then gathered to discuss different Stage II traffic calming measures appropriate for implementation on Canary Drive. From the meetings, staff and the neighborhood residents/owners were able to develop a recommended Stage II traffic calming plan to be voted on by the neighborhood. The plan developed by the neighborhood and staff consisted of a landscaped traffic circle at the intersection of Canary Drive and Loch Lomond, a stamped concrete speed hump located on the property lines of four Canary Drive residences, and a 4 foot by 20 foot long median island with brick pavers on Canary Drive at Inverness Avenue. This plan was presented to the neighborhood through a letter and survey prepared by staff. Of the returned surveys, 71% supported the traffic calming plan and 29% were opposed to the plan.
After completing the neighborhood survey and finding neighborhood support for the traffic calming plan, staff brought the Canary Drive traffic calming plan to City Council for final approval and implementation in June of 2002 (RTC 02-211). City Council approved the plan and directed staff to return with a six month post-installation study describing the results of the Stage II Traffic Calming installation.
City crews finished constructing the Canary Drive Stage II traffic calming measures in March 2003. Subsequent public input showed that the vast majority of comments received from residents and property owners in the Canary Drive neighborhood were positive. Two negative responses were received by staff from residents on Eagle Drive; one expressed concerns about shifting traffic from Canary to Eagle, and the other expressed concern about the actual need for traffic calming on Canary Drive.
In order to gauge the effectiveness of the Stage II traffic calming measures installed on Canary Drive, staff conducted before and after studies. The studies consist of speed and volume data collection and analysis. Studies conducted prior to installation of traffic calming devices on Canary Drive showed that the average speed was 31.3 miles per hour and the 85th percentile speed was 35.7miles per hour. The average daily traffic on Canary Drive was 1269 vehicles per day. Approximately six months after the installation of the Stage II traffic calming measures, the average speed was reduced to 24.1 miles per hour and the 85th percentile speed was reduced to 28.6 miles per hour. The average daily traffic on Canary Drive dropped slightly to 1179 vehicles per day. This data shows that Canary Drive experienced a 7.3 miles per hour drop in average speed and a 7.1 miles per hour drop in 85th percentile speeds. With the implementation of Stage II traffic calming measures on Canary Drive, speeds have dropped below the minimum thresholds outlined in the City’s Traffic Calming Policy. Traffic volumes are still above the minimum threshold set in the City’s Traffic Calming Policy, but the volume of traffic was not indicated as a concern by the residents and property owners during the traffic calming process. As a result, the Stage II measures implemented were not designed to reduce traffic volumes on Canary Drive.
Upon presentation of these findings to residents and the City Council, Council directed staff to respond to resident desires for consideration of an additional speed hump. Staff considered the impact of an additional speed hump installation on Canary Drive. This device would optimally be located at 1641/1645 and 1634/1638 Canary Drive. Staff anticipates that the street would experience another drop in the average speed to 19 miles per hour and the 85th percentile speed to 23 miles per hour, although further speed attenuation is not necessary according to adopted criteria. Residents reported some noise and road rage issues with the existing hump that would likely be exacerbated with an additional hump. Visibility of the existing hump was also cited as an issue.
A neighborhood meeting was held at the Ortega Park Building on May 5, 2004 that resulted in consensus on a range of possible actions for residents to consider. A poll was then conducted on these actions. Due to similarities between some of the potential actions (permanent versus temporary speed hump installation) it was decided that the poll did not fairly represent conflicting points of view on further traffic calming. A second poll was then held to simply gauge support for or against further traffic calming. This poll resulted in 60% of residents indicating support for no further traffic calming on Canary Drive. Out of 82 ballots mailed, staff received a return of 45 ballots, or 55% of eligible voters.
On February 1, 2005, staff presented Council with the results of additional public outreach and the neighborhood survey regarding installation of an additional speed hump or other devices (RTC 05-016). Based on the testimony of residents who were present at the meeting, Council directed staff to collaborate with the Canary Drive community residents to consider installation of an additional temporary traffic calming measure, exclusive of another speed hump, between two permanent, existing measures, at a cost not to exceed $5,000 and to return the remaining project funds to the General Fund.
EXISTING POLICY
Land Use and Transportation Element C3: Attain a transportation system that is effective, safe, pleasant, and convenient.
Land Use and Transportation Element N1.5: Support a roadway system that protects internal residential areas from City-wide and regional traffic.
Land Use and Transportation Element N1.5.2: Utilize the City’s residential neighborhood “Traffic Calming” techniques to address specific neighborhood traffic concerns.
Land Use and Transportation Element N1.5.3: Discourage non-neighborhood traffic from using residential neighborhood streets by accommodating traffic demand on city-wide and regional streets.
DISCUSSION
In June of 2002, City Council approved the Stage II Traffic Calming Plan for Canary Drive and authorized staff to construct the indicated traffic calming measures on Canary Drive. After construction was complete, staff conducted a post-implementation study of the neighborhood to determine the impacts and results of the traffic calming measures after installation.
A post-installation study describing the results of the Stage II traffic calming installation was completed and presented to Council on March 2, 2004 (RTC 04-060). The post-implementation study concluded that, based on the volume and speed of vehicles, the Stage II traffic calming measures installed on Canary Drive from Homestead Road to Inverness Avenue have adequately reduced the average speed to acceptable levels.
The average speed was reduced to 24.1 miles per hour and 85th percentile travel speeds (the speed at which 85% of all vehicles traveling on the street are traveling at or below) were reduced to 28.6 miles per hour. Acceptable levels are 85th percentile speeds less than 32 miles per hour for a neighborhood residential street. This is the threshold criteria indicated in the City’s Traffic Calming Policy.
Some residents have continued to request additional traffic calming, specifically the installation of an additional speed hump. At the March, 2004 presentation of the after-study results, Council directed staff to review the necessity and support for an additional speed hump. This investigation concluded that technically another hump is not warranted, and that a majority of residents responding to a poll do not support additional traffic calming. In February 2005, Council directed staff to work with residents to consider installing additional temporary traffic calming measures (exclusive of a speed hump) midway between the two permanent measures at a cost not to exceed $5,000 and to return the remainder of project funds to the General Fund. The Council at that time voted against the installation of an additional speed hump.
Staff has completed additional investigation and outreach. Three alternatives for additional calming measures were identified that met the Council’s direction for budget and provided some effectiveness. Possible additional traffic calming methods developed and discussed with the community included bulbouts (painted islands that give the perception of a narrowed roadway), a chicane (curvature of the roadway centerline), and narrowing of travel lanes with striping. A “no further action” scenario was also discussed.
Staff held two public outreach meetings on September 26, 2005 and October 24, 2005 to present the low cost methods. Notices were mailed to 82 residents and property owners. The meetings consisted of only eight attendees, and concluded with no consensus on low cost measures. Residents in attendance were uniformly supportive of an additional speed hump.
A group of residents are strongly in support of the installation of an additional speed hump. The City Council specifically voted against the installation of an additional speed hump because the existing devises have brought the street into compliance with City traffic calming criteria and polling showed a lack of a majority of residents’ support. However, in response to concerns heard from some residents that are participating in the process, City staff included a second hump as a possible alternative for residents to choose to indicate support for once again when balloting of the neighborhood was conducted in February, 2006. Even in light of the fact the City Council has already given staff direction not to install a second speed hump, staff placed the additional speed hump on the ballot to respond to community input from residents who attended the public meeting. The City has decided already that a second speed hump is not appropriate, but staff did not want to disengage those residents that continue to support that course.
A neighborhood survey was administered in February, 2006 presenting four aerial photographs graphically depicting what each traffic calming measure may look like and how it may be designed. Surveys were mailed out to residents/property owners’ of Canary Drive. A total of 82 ballots were mailed out, and a total of 40 ballots were returned. Nineteen (19) favored an additional hump, 19 favored no additional actions, and 2 favored the installation of bulbouts. Based on the results of this poll, staff concludes that there is no consensus within the Canary Drive community on additional measures to be taken.
At this time, staff asks that Council accept the study results and consider the Canary Drive project complete.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should Council support the staff recommendation, $5,000 in funds budgeted for Project 822220 Canary Drive Traffic Calming would be returned to the General Fund. If Council chooses to support the installation of a second speed hump on Canary Drive, the cost of this device is estimated at $25,000 for a stamped concrete hump. Additional funds would need to be budgeted to accomplish this direction.
Conclusion
Per Council’s latest direction for Canary Drive’s Traffic Calming Project, staff went back to the Canary Drive neighborhood to present information on potential low cost traffic calming treatments and to gather community input on these treatments or other ideas that area residents/property owners may have. Staff held two community outreach meetings and re-surveyed the residents/property owners which resulted in no consensus within the community.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Several community meetings have been held on this issue, and public hearings for four Reports to Council have occurred since 1998. Public contact for this Report was made through posting of the Council agenda on the City's official notice bulletin board, posting of the agenda and report on the City's web page, and the availability of the report in the Library and the City Clerk's Office. In addition, notices were mailed directly to property owners, tenants and concerned individuals in the Canary Drive neighborhood area.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff to take no further action on the Canary Drive Traffic Calming Project and consider the project complete.
2. Direct staff to pursue additional traffic calming on Canary Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative #1: Direct staff to take no further action on the Canary Drive traffic Calming Project and consider the project complete.
As a result of the fact that there is no consensus and almost no support for measures consistent with the most recent Council direction, staff recommends against any further action.
Reviewed by:
Marvin Rose, Director of Public Works
Prepared by: Wahid Amiri, Traffic Engineering Assistant II
Approved by:
Amy Chan
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A. Sunnyvale Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy