HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-16 City Council (9)TO:
City of Palo Alto
............................................. City :Manager’s Rep°rtl 0
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:’ CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JANUARY 16, 2001 CMR: 105:01
SUBJECT:PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
REPORT IN BRIEF
The proposed Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) is a set of procedures and
guidelines for traffic calming on a citywide basis for individual local and collector streets
and entire residential neighborhoods. This proposed program does not apply to residential
arterial streets. A $100,000 annual budget would pay for the "spot treatment" traffic calming
projects on one or a few local and collector streets. For complex projects and neighborhood
projects, staffwill request additional funding on a project-by-project basis within the overall
Capital Improvement Program budget. The proposed NTCP would help the City respond
more quickly to residents’ concerns about traffic problems on residential local and collector
streets. To that end, this program proposes the delegation, of some traffic calming decisions,
which are currently made by the City Council, to the City Manager and (after review and
recommendations by the Planning and Transportation Commission) to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. The Planning and Transportation Commission
desires that the primary focus of the NTCP be on improved safety for non-motorized street
users through speed reduction, rather than volume reduction. Commissioners were also
concerned about the large amount of curbside parking removal that could potentially be
.authorized by staff. Staff has made the necessary modifications to the NTCP to respond to
the Commission’s concerns, as well as a few other proposed modifications. Staff
recommends adoption of the revised NTCP.
CMR: 105:01 Page 1 of 9
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends the following Council action:
Approve the Negative Declaration for low-impact traffic calming projects on local
streets;
o Adopt the City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP), as
amended by the Planning and Transportation Commission;
Adopt the ordinance amending Palo Alto MunicipalC0de Section 10.36.080, with
staff-developed language in response to recommendations from the Planning and
Transportation Commission; and
Designate the Chief Transportation Official as the approving authority for: (i)
permanent installation of low-impact traffic calming projects on local streets; and (ii)
trial installation of local street traffic calming projects that force vertical or horizontal
movement for speed control.
With regard to Recommendation 1, staff recommends removing .from the NTCP the
expedited approval process, for low-impact traffic calming projects and the accompanying
negative declaration. Any citizen request for low-impact measures would thus be considered
following the same procedures as for other traffic, calming measures. Therefore,
Recommendation 1 would no longer be necessary.
In reference to Recommendation 2, staff recommends the following two revised definitions
that were not included in the Commission’s amendments. Staff believes that these revised
definitions promote standardization and clarify the Commission’s intentions. The revisions
also add the term "neighborhood livability," which staff believes is a desired outcome of
traffic calming.
Staff-revised. definition of traffic calming: Traffic calming is the combination of
¯ mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter
driver behavior, improve safety for non-motorized street users, and improve
neighborhood livability.
Staff-revised Objective 1: Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and neighborhood
livability by reducing traffic speeds, crashes, and cut-through traffic on local and
collector streets, primarily through engineering means.
In reference to Recommendation 3, staff has concluded that the proposed ordinance is not
required because the City Manager already has sufficient authority to remove parking. In
response to the Commission’s concerns about parking removal, staff has modified NTCP
CMR: 105:01 Page 2 of 9
Guideline 6 to substantially limit the extent of parking removal by staff. Thus,
Recommendation 3 would no longer be necessary.
In reference to Recommendation 4, staff recommends that the City Manager be the approval
authority instead of the Chief Transportation Official. Discussion of these items is found
below under "Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendations"
and "Policy Implications."
.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is the development of procedures and guidelines for a Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program for individual local and collector streets and entire residential
neighborhoods. For purposes of this report, traffic calming is the combination of mainly
physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver
behavior, improve safety for non-motorized street users, and improve neighborhood
livability. Attachment D is the proposed NTCP--an all-inclusive, stand-alone booklet that is
proposed for distribution to the public after it is approved by the City Council. The first part
of the booklet is comprised of the objectives, guidelines, procedures, and criteria for the
program. The second part of the booklet is an appendix that describes a wide range of
physical traffic calming measures. The attached NTCP contains the amendments and
suggestions made by the Commission, plus some further proposed changes not discussed by
the Commission. All these items are discussed in the following section of this report. Staff
has also made numerous editorial improvements to the NTCP booklet.
The proposed NTCP has two subprograms contained in the single document. The first is a
"spot treatment" program for calming traffic on one or a few streets. It has an annual budget
of $100,000 (subject to annual renewal)that funds data collection, design, construction and
removal (if necessary) of traffic calming measures. The second program of the NTCP is a
"complex/neighborhood project" program that addresses traffic calming on several
interconnected neighborhood streets, including an entire neighborhood; and any project that
is too complex or expensive to be considered under the "spot treatment" program. As a
guideline, staff would consider a traffic calming project to be too complex or expensive for
the spot treatment program if the cost were to exceed the annual budget (currently
$100,000). These complex and/or neighborhood traffic calming projects require more
extensive analytical studies and outreach to residents than do the spot treatment projects. A
good example of a complex or neighborhood project is the Downtown North traffic calming
project now underway. Requests for complex/neighborhood projects would be qualified and
ranked according to the criteria in Chapter VII of the NTCP. They would then be placed on
a separate project list that would be evaluated as part of the development of the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. Staff would usually conduct these large
projects following the full 12-step procedure of Chapter VI of the NTCP.
CMR: 105:01 Page 3 of 9
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission first discussed the NTCP on May 10, 2000, and requested that staffmake
substantial improvements before it was considered further. Staff revised the program and
brought it back to the Commission on September 27, 2000. The Commission’s September
27 discussion is the topic of this report. The September 27 discussion focussed on two
substantive issues. The first was the role of street closures as traffic calming measures and
the degree to which volume reduction should be included as a goal of traffic calming. The
¯ second issue was the degree to which the City Manager should be permitted to remove
parking for the placement of traffic calming measures. These two issues, as well as other
changes requested by the Commission, are discussed below. Staff is proposing other
changes that are also included in the following discussion.
Street Closures and Volume Reduction
At least one Commissioner believed that traffic calming should not include volume
reduction. That is, traffic calming should primarily focus on slowing down traffic, with
possibly some volume reduction as a consequence. Some Commissioners felt that the
primary goal of traffic calming should be to improve safety. In general, the Commission
desires that the primary focus of the NTCP be on improved safety for non-motorized street
users through speed reduction. In the NTCP that the Commission reviewed, the primary
objective of traffic calming was:
Objective 1: Reduce traffic Speeds, volumes, crashes, and cut-through traffic on local
and collector streets through engineering means.
After considerable discussion, the Commission unanimously approved the NTCP
(Recommendation 2), but with Objective 1 changed as follows:
Objective 1: Reduce traffic speeds, crashes, and cut-through traffic on local and
collector streets through engineering means. Sub-objective 1.5: Emphasize pedestrian
and bicycle safety.
Even though the Commission removed "reduce volumes" fxom Objective 1, the objective of
"reduce cut-through traffic" still remains. ~In the end, the Commission reluctantly concluded
that volume control measures (e.g:, street closures, turn restrictions, diverters, etc) should
remain in the program because they are an effective way to reduce cut-through traffic.
Furthermore, volume control measures are specifically allowed by the Comprehensive Plan
for special situations. By leaving "cut-through traffic" in Objective 1, it will still be
acceptable to reduce traffic volumes that are comprised of high levels of cut-through traffic,
as long as the primary goal is to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.
CMR: 105:01 Page 4 of 9
To make this objective more consistent with staff’s suggested definition of traffic calming,
staff proposes that Objective 1 be reworded to read:
Objective 1: Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and neighborhood livability by
reducing traffic speeds, crashes, and cut-through traffic on local and collector streets,
primarily through engineering means.
This change strengthens the Commission’s desired emphasis on safety, loosens the
.statement about using solely engineering means (to allow the occasional use of police
enforcement), and adds an emphasis on neighborhood livability. The above changes
suggested by staffhave been included in the attached NTCP on pages 3 and 5.
Speed Reduction
Commissioners sought assurance from staff that the primary emphasis in the traffic calming
program would be on speed reduction rather than on volume reduction. The Commission
requested that additional weighting be given to citizen requests involving speeding
problems. Staff has made the weighting change in the first four ranking criteria on page 24
of.the NTCP booklet.. The number of points assigned to each speed ranking criterion has
been doubled compared to what the Commission reviewed. Once a traffic calming request
has been received and staff determines that it meets the minimum qualifying criteria, it will
be placed on the project list. A qualified request with high speeds would now score more
ranking points than one with high volumes (assuming other factors are equal), and would
thus be placed higher on the project list. (Note that the minimum qualifying criteria for
speeds on page 23 of the booklet have not been changed. They remain at 32 mph for a local
street and 35 mph for a collector street. Staff believes that lowering these qualifying criteria
would overwhelm the program with more requests than staffing and budget resources would
allow to be processed.) In addition to the revised ranking system, emphasis on speed
reduction over volume reduction is inherent in the proposed NTCP. Guideline 4 (page 8 of
the NTCP) restates the Comprehensive Plan policy about maintaining open streets.
Guideline 9 states that speed reduction will be the primary objective for collector street
projects. Finally, where street closures are discussed in the NTCP (Chapter IV and measure
No. 19 in the Appendix), there are full statements of the Comprehensive Plan policy
discouraging their use:
Parking Removal
Considerable Commission discussion resulted from the proposal that the City Manager be
authorized to remove up to one block of parking in order to implement permanent
installation of low-impact traffic calming projects (refer to pages 10 - 11 of the attached
staff report). Commissioners were concerned about the potential for a large amount of staff-
authorized parking removal and that there would be no citizen recourse to a higher
authority. Staff is now recommending deletion of the expedited process for low-impact
traffic calming projects (see discussion below under "Low-Impact Traffic Calming
Projects") However, the parking issue is still germane because staff-authorized parking
CMR: 105:01 Page 5 of 9
removal is still necessary for trials of spot treatment traffic calming projects on local streets.
(For clarification, all other trials and permanent installations of traffic calming measures
would be subject to Commission or Council review.)
In responding to the Commission’s concerns, staff has concluded that Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Chapters 10.36.080(a)(3) and 10.40.020 already give the City Manager
sufficient authority to prohibit curbside parking. No changes to the code are necessary to
implement this part of the NTCP. To accommodate the Commission’s concerns, staff has
¯ modified Guideline 6 (page 8 of the NTCP) to state that staff-authorized parking removal
for traffic calming projects would be limited to a maximum of 60 feet on each side of a local
residential street, within every 400-foot length of street. This is equal to the maximum
number of spaces that would be required to install one typical traffic calming measure in
each typical city block of a traffic calming project (60 feet, or 3 parking spaces, per block
face, for a total of 6 spaces per typical city block). Usually about 14 to 15 vehicles can be
parkedper block face in a 400-foot block, for a total of about 28 to 30 spaces per block.
Thus, Guideline 6 would allow the removal of up to about 20 percent of the available
parking on a local street for a traffic calming project. If Council desires, staff could prepare
an ordinance in. order to codify staffs proposed parking removal guidelines, which would
most likely be placed in PAMC Chapter 10.36.080.
Pedestrian Generators
In the NTCP that staff presented to the Commission, one of the qualifying critera for a
traffic calming project was that the street had to be within 1000 feet of an elementary,
middle or secondary school. Some Commissioners requested that other pedestrian-
generating sites be included on that list. In response, on page 23 of the NTCP, staff has
changed criterion (c) to read: "Location within 1000 feet walking distance of a school,
senior citizen facility, facility for the disabled, park, community center, or other site with
significant pedestrian activity." (For clarification, it is not mandatory for a traffic calming
request to meet this or any other single criterion in order to qualify for the project list. It is
sufficient for a request to meet any two of the five criteria listed in Chapter VII of the
NTCP.)
Complexity of the Program
Starting with the Commission’s first review of the proposed NTCP, many Commissioners
felt that the program had too many steps and seemed too bureaucratic. Staff made a few
.significant changes after the first Commission review, but the same 12 steps in the
procedure still remain and the overall length of the document is unchanged. Staff is now
proposing another change that will somewhat reduce the program’s complexity. This is the
removal of the expedited procedure for low-impact traffic calming projects.
As explained in Chapter VI of the NTCP, most traffic calming projects will not actually
require the full 12-step procedure. Furthermore, residents are not responsible for navigating
CMR: 105:01 Page 6 of 9
the steps required to process a request. It is staff’s job to determine which steps apply to
which requests, and to guide residents through the process. One Commissioner suggested
that a simpler document be prepared, for citywide distribution. Staff believes that a one-page
pamphlet could be prepared to introduce the program and explain to residents how to get.
started. However, one page of information cannot possibly explain the procedure or describe
the various types of traffic calming measures.
Low-Impact Traffic Calming Projects
.In the NTCP presented to the Commission, staff had proposed an expedited procedure for
low-impact traffic calming measures--e.g., gateways, bulb-outs, on-street parking, and
signing. These measures do not greatly alter speeds or volumes, so the negative impacts are
relatively minor. That process did not require a trial period, thus considerably shortening the
time to implementation. Since the September 27 Commission review of this project, staff
has concluded that relatively few citizens would request these types of measures
exclusively. Unless low impact measures are combined with more aggressive measures,
they are not particularly effective at calming traffic. Inclusion of the special process just for
low impact measures increased the complexity of the NTCP. Staff believes that simplifying
the NTCP by removing this special procedure is more important than the loss of expediency
for the few cases to which it would apply. Thus, staff now proposes that requests
exclusively for low-impact traffic calming measures be considered following the same
procedure as for other spot treatment traffic calming projects on local streets. (That is, there
would be a four-month staff-approved trial period. The Planning and Transportation
Commission would review the results of the trial and recommend approval or disapproval to
the Director of Planning and Community Development. City Council action would not be
required.) Staff’s proposa! to delete the expedited procedure for low-impact projects also
makes it unnecessary to have a program negative declaration for low-impact projects. Thus,
Recommendation 1 of this report would no longer apply. This procedure is summarized in
Attachment A of this report, Table 1. These staff-proposed changes have already been
included in the attached NTCP.
Other Commission Requests
In addition to the major issues included in the Commission’s approval motion discussed
above, individual Commissioners requested some other smaller changes to the program that
are discussed in Attachment B.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Planning Commission Recommendations to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment
For certain traffic calming projects, the NTCP provides that the Planning and Transportation
Commission review and make recommendations to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. In these cases, the Director would make the final decisions,
which are currently made by the City Council. This procedure would shorten the time and
CMR:105:01 Page 7 of 9
complexity of the traffic calming project process. (It was not clearly explained in the
attached staff report that these Commission recommendations must be approved by the
Director, as the City charter does not permit the Commission to make final approvals.) As
shown in Table 1 in Attachment A to this report, staffproposes that the Director of Planning
and Community Environment (after considering recommendations from the Commission)
be the final approving authority for (i) permanent installations of spot treatment traffic
calming projects on local streets that do not employ street closures, diverters, or other
measures that substantially divert traffic to other streets; and for (ii) trial installations of all
.the following: complex projects, collector street projects, projects with street closures or
diverters, and neighborhood projects. This procedure would be similar to the provisions of
PAMC Chapters 16.48.070 and 080, in which the Architectural Review Board makes
recommendations to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, who then
makes the final decision based on those recommendations.
Citizen Appeals
As discussed above, staff proposes deleting the expedited procedure for staff approval of
permanent installation of low-impact traffic calming measures. With this change, all
permanent installations of traffic calming measures would either be reviewed by the
Planning and Transportation Commission, or approved by the CityCouncil (refer to Table 1
of Attachment A). Thus, no provision is made in the NTCP for citizen appeals of these
approvals. Staff has not included a citizen appeal procedure for City Manager .approval of a
trial of spot treatment traffic calming projects. This is because subsequent Commission
review is required before a permanent installation could proceed, at which time a citizen
would have the opportunity to address the permanent project before the Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
For each trial of a traffic calming project, staffwould prepare .an analysis of potential project
impacts. The trial project is categorically exempt fxom environmental review per CEQA
Article 15306. If the trial is successful and staff recommends its permanent installation, staff
would prepare an environmental review for the permanent project, based on results of the
trial, and would likely adopt a negative declaration. The City Council or the Director of
Planning and Community Environment would approve the environmental review if and
when that body approves the project for permanent installation.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Table 1 ("Overview of Project Implementation and Environmental Assessment") and
Table 2 ("Summary of Citizen Support Requirements’)
B. Additional Commission Requests
C. September 27, 2000 Transportation Division Staff Report to the Planning and
Transportation Commission
D.Revised Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) booklet, including Appendix
of Traffic Calming Measures
CMR: 105:01 Page 8 of 9
PREPARED BY:Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
G. EDWARD G-A’~F ~)
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
"~MILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc:Attendees of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Workshop
CMR:105:01 Page 9 of 9
0 ,~ ,.0
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REQUESTS
Enforcement
The Commission briefly discussed whether enforcement should be part of the traffic
calming toolkit. The former definition of traffic calming excluded enforcement by
defining traffic calming solely as engineering measures. Staff had purposely excluded
enforcement from the toolkit because enforcement cannot solve most of the speed and
¯ cut-through problems from which citizens are seeldng relief (refer to the second
paragraph of page 2 of the NTCP). Staff agrees, however, that enforcement could be
included in traffic calming efforts under some circumstances, but the primary tools of
traffic calming will still remain the physical measures. Staff’s suggested revised
definition of traffic calming is slightly "looser" in its reference to the use of physical
measures, so this would be more suitable to permitting the use of enforcement.
Neighborhood Associations
The NTCP presented to the Commission required that a traffic calming request be
received either from a neighborhood association, or through a petition signed by at least
25 percent of the households on each block where action was requested (NTCP Chapter
VI, Step 1). This requirement ensures that there is a minimum level of resident support,
for a request before staff invests time in gathering the qualifying data. At least one
Commissioner thought that some neighborhood associations might not be truly
representative of the neighborhood, and suggested that a traffic calming request come
only through the petition. Staff has made that change in Step 1, but only for the spot
treatment traffic .calming requests. For requests that involve many streets or an entire
neighborhood, staff believes that the request should still come from the neighborhood
association (if there is one) and through the 25 percent support petition. This change is
included in the attached NTCP.
Error A llowance.for Speed and Volume Measurements.
When staff makes the speed and volume measurements to determine if the minimum
qualifying criteria are met, staff will multiply these measurements by _+5 percent and_+ 10
percent, respectively. This is because the typical speed or volume could vary slightly
from the actual measurement due to measurement errors and random daily fluctuations.
For example, if staff measures an 85th percentile speed on the street to be 31.8 mph, the
actual speed could lie between 30.2 and 33.4 mph (31.8 +_5%). Thus, this measurement,
with the error factor applied, would meet the minimum speed Criterion of 32 mph. At
least one Commissioner felt that the statement of this error range was too confusing.
The alternative to the percentage factors is to set an absolute minimum for speed and
volume requirements, with any measurement less than that, no matter by how little,
deemed to be not qualifying. In the above example, the measurement of 31.8 mph would
just barely miss meeting the minimum speed criterion. Staff prefers to give the benefit of
the doubt in the measurements to the requestor by applying the percentage factors. To
keep these factors, yet make the minimum qualifying criteria seem less complicated to
the public, staff has moved the percentage factors to footnotes where they are less
obvious to the casual reader (refer to Chapter VII of the NTCP). Requesting citizens do
not have to figure this out for themselves. The burden is actually on staff to make the
measurements of the qualifying criteria and to explain to the requestor why the request
does or does not qualify to be placed on the project list.
Length of Trial Period
Staff had originally proposed that the trial period for traffic calming projects be l’,lgnited to
¯ three months, whereas trial periods in past projects have been a minimum of six months.
This would reduce the amount of time to reach a permanent installation. In the first
Commission meeting, a Commissioner requested that the three-month trial be lengthened.
Staff did not make that change for the second Commission review, nor did
Commissioners raise this issue again. However, staff now believes that a ~four-month.trial
period would be preferable for the spot treatment traffic calming projects on local streets.
For all other more complex projects, collector street projects, projects with street closures
or diverters, and neighborhood studies, staff proposes to maintain the six-month trial
length currently used.
ATTACHMENT C
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Joseph Kott DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 27, 2000
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that City
Council:
o
Approve the Negative Declaration for low-impact traffic calming projects on local
streets (Attachment 2);
Adopt the City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (Attachment 1);
Adopt the ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.36.080 giving
the City Manager authority to establish no parking zones of up to one block in length
in order to implement traffic calming measures (Attachment 5); and
Designate the City Traffic Engineer as the approving authority for: (i) permanent
installation of low-impact traffic calming projects on local streets; and (ii) trial
installation of local street traffic calming projects that force vertical or horizontal
movement for speed control.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
This report presents a formal traffic calming program with established criteria, procedures,
and budget. "Traffic calming" is the modem terminology for neighborhood traffic
management. For purposes of this program, traffic calming refers to the use of engineering
measures to make permanent physical changes that reduce traffic speed and/or volume,
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00.Page 1 of 24
thereby improving safety and livability for street users and residents. The proposed City of
Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) would help the City be more
responsive to residents’ concerns about traffic problems on residential local and collector
streets. It establishes criteria and procedures to facilitate a timely staff response to citizen
requests.
Neighborhood traffic calming is one of two distinct Palo Alto traffic calming initiatives. The
NTCP pertains to local and collector streets, which are generally lower volume roadways
that serve neighborhoods. This staff report concerns calming traffic on these neighborhood
streets. The Transportation Division also manages the Residential Arterial Traffic Calming
Program. The arterial program is distinct ~om the Neighborhood TCP proposed here, in that
the arterial program addresses a fundamentally different issue--that of traffic flow on the
City’s major traffic arteries, which are expected to carry large volumes of traffic in a
relatively free-flowing manner. An important fimction of arterial roadways is to connect Palo
Alto to neighboring communities within the region.
Attachment 1 comprises the proposed Neighborhood TCP--an all-inclusive, stand-alone
document that is proposed for distribution to the public after it is approved by the City
Council. The proposed NTCP has two parts: a "spot treatment!’ program for calming traffic
on one or a few streets under the following circumstances: a high probability of success; a
low probability of "spill-over" traffic problems on other neighborhood streets; and avoidance
of unacceptable delays on emergency vehicle routes. This effort is currently funded by a
one-year budget of $100,000. This budget funds data .collection, design, and construction
of simple traffic calming measures.
The second component of the proposed NTCP addresses traffic calming on a network of
interconnected neighborhood streets. Staff proposes that these more complex and typically
more expensive traffic calming projects, which require more extensive analytical studies and
outreach to residents, be addressed as neighborhood studies similar to the effort now
underway for the Downtown North neighborhood. "Neighborhood studies!’ comprise
feasibility analysis, planning, and public outreach; design and construction of project "trials"
or temporary installation of traffic calming measures; and desigh and construction of
permanent measures. These efforts would require additional funding and staff’mg separate
from that provided for the proposed "spot treatment" component of the NTCP.
Neighborhood projects and studies would be placed on a separate project list to be forwarded
annually to the City Council with requests for funding and authorization to proceed. When
such projects are started, however, they would usually be conducted following the general
procedures as described in the NTCP. The NTCP includes proposed qualifying and ranking
criteria for neighborhood studies.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 2 of 24
Chapter VI of the proposed NTCP sets forth a basic procedure, based partly on the
successful model of Portland, Oregon, by which traffic calming projects will be requested
and eventually constructed. Staffwill skip certain steps of this basic procedure depending
on the nature of each traffic calming project. Residents would make their requests through
their neighborhood association or with the support of at least 25 percent of their neighbors,
and they would submit their requests directly to staff. Staff would screen requests using
standard criteria, distinguish which ones do not qualify for consideration for traffic calming
measures, then rank those that do qualify. The qualifying criteria~ while not overly strict, will
"still substantially limit the number of eligible projects. There are two reasons that make such
a limit desirable: (i) the limited annual City resources allocated to the traffic calming
program, and (ii) a ne6d to limit traffic calming measures to the more serious problem streets
due to Fire Department concems for emergency vehicle access and response time. Staff
expects that about 10-20 projects would qualify annually for the "spot treatment" traffic
calming project list, but with a substantially smaller number actually being implemented
each year. Staff expects three to five annual requests for neighborhood studies. Staffwould
work on the highest rated projects on the single (or several) street "spot treatment" project
list and the neighborhood studies list as workload and funding permit. As a result, residents
will have a clear understanding of how a project or neighborhood study request rankswith
other projects or studies (or why it doesn’t qualify), and some idea of how long it would take
for staff to implement a project.
The proposed NTCP should reduce the time to get certain types of traffic calming projects
on the ground, compared to today’s procedures. Every effort has been made to streamline this
program as much as possible, while still including the important elements of citizen
participation, and Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council involvement.
Time savings would be realized by eliminating trial installations and Council approvals for
certain types of projects. Reducing Commission and Council involvement in these simple
projects reduces the processing time, frees up staff time, provides a more responsive process
for citizens, and enables the Commission and Council to focus onthe important decisions
required for permanent installations and major traffic calming projects. Staffwill implement
this program as soon as it receives Council approval.
BACKGROUND
The City receives numerous requests, complaints, and suggestions from residents about
traffic issues pertaining to maintenance, stop signs, visibility impairment, parking, traffic
signal timing, lane striping, speeding, traffic volumes, trucks, accidents, and others. Staff
responds in several ways to these requests, as explained in Chapter I of the proposed NTCP.
Somewhat different than the above traffic issues are the concerns of some residents about
chronic problems affecting local residential streets--speeding, commuter shortcutting, or just
too much traffic--affecting areas ranging from a single block to an entire neighborhood.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 3 of 24
These problems pose challenges, because they are not easily addressed by the usual City
actions. For example, the degree of speeding is often not severe or frequent enough to
warrant taking Police Department time away from other problem areas. Commuter
shortcutting and excessive traffic volumes are not traffic violations and cannot be addressed
by enforcement. Educational techniques can help to some degree, but they require continual
effort. Palo Alto is a pioneer in using physical traffic management measures to reduce the
impacts of traffic on residential neighborhoods. Nevertheless, to date, each project has been
handled on.an ad-hoc basis. Attachment 3 shows the numerous traffic calming measures that
¯ Palo Alto has installed in the past several decades. Many cities have now adopted formal
traffic calming programs, including Seattle, Bellevue (Washington), Portland (Oregon), San
Luis Obispo, Ventura, Campbell, Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale and Menlo Park--
many of these just in the past few years. Each program has procedures, a budget, and staff’mg
for neighborhood traffic calming projects. In staff’s opinion, the premier program is
Portland’s, which has served as the basis for many of the above programs, including that
proposed for Palo Alto.
Under thepresent City process, residents desiring traffic calming usually have sought the
support of other neighbors or their neighborhood associations, then approached Council for
action. Other requests have come directly to staff. The process from that point forward has
taken several different paths--sometimes minimal or no action by staff and sometimes a
fairly complex study with City Council direction involved at several points. A hurdle for
smaller requests is lack of dedicated funding. Residents who wanted speed humps have been
able to use the City’s procedure established in 1991, submitting requests directly to staff, but
with Council approval required for funding and installation in each-case. Since the start of
the speed hump program, no requests for speed humps have met the strict criteria of the
program (although speed humps have been installed in any case as part of special Council-
approved projects). There are at present no qualifying or ranking criteria for neighborhood
study requests. Staff believes that the current ad-hoc system has worked against many
potential traffic calming installations, and probably has discouraged some individuals from
even approaching the City with their traffic calming issues.
Local, Collector and Arterial Streets
Palo Alto’s street hierarchy consists of local, collector, and arterial streets, expressways, and
freeways. Figure 2 in the proposed NTCP illustrates Palo Alto’s streetnetwork. The
proposed NTCP is specifically limited to residential local and collector streets. However,
a local or collector street traffic calming project may include traffic fiow improvements on
a nearby arterial street that are designed to attract shortcutting traffic out of a neighborhood
and back onto an arterial. Some residents living on arterial streets believe that traffic calming
measures should also be applied to their streets. The purpose of arterial streets is to carry
rather large volumes of local and through traffic in, ideally, a relatively free-flowing manner.
Recognizing the interest in and need for traffic calming on arterial streets that are residential
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 4 of 24
in nature, the City has already embarked on the Residential Arterial Traffic Calming
Program. This is a distinct program from the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
discussed herein and is being implemented on a separate track.
The first guideline of the proposed Neighborhood TCP is that "non-neighborhood" or
"through" traffic on local streets should be encouraged to use arterial streets (refer to Chapter
III of the NTCP). This would seem to worl~ against the Residential Arterial Traffic Calming
Program; however, it actually does not. As stated above, the primary purpose of the latter
program is to reduce speeds and "smooth" arterial flow, while maintaining full arterial traffic
volumes and full access for all vehicles and other road users. Nevertheless, residents of
residential arterials might feel that their streets are at capacity or that residents on all streets
should share the City’s traffic loads. The belief that all streets should share all traffic actually
contradicts the long-standing purpose of arterial streets as the City’s major through traffic
carriers. Stated another way, the City’s policy as stated inthe Comprehensive Plan, and as
carried’ out by the proposed Neighborhood TCP, is that local neighborhood streets are
designated primarily as carriers of local neighborhood traffic. In reality, it will never be
possible to eliminate all non-local traffic from local streets (except cul-de-sacs), so through
traffic will be shared by everyone to some extent. Only the most drastic traffic calming
project, such as full street closures on all but one neighborhood access point, would totally
remove through traffic. Such a program is not advocated by the Comprehensive Plan, or by
this proposed program.
Pros and Cons of Traffic Calming
Generally, the benefits of traffic calming are obvious and predictable, while the
disadvantages may not be quite so obvious. If not implemented correctly, traffic calming
measures could result in problems more significant than the original concern. A full
discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of traffic calming is provided in Chapter V of the
proposed NTCP. In that discussion, greater emphasis is placed on the drawbacks so that
residents can be fully informed before they request action, and so they understand the issues
that staff and Council must consider in approving and designing a traffic calming project.
Despite today’s popularity of traffic calming programs, two cities provide examples of how
the negative impacts of traffic calming need to be given serious consideration. Due to a
combination of problems, including especially a drain on staff resources, San Jose
abandoned its traffic calming program in the early 1990s. Instead, the city focussed on
improvement of major arterials and freeways, plus providing new ones; inclusion of
restrictive street designs in new neighborhoods (i.e., "built-in" traffic calming); and a
citywide program of photo-enforcement. However, new traffic has since overwhelmed major
.roadway improvements and citizens have successfully insisted that San Jose’s traffic calming
program be reinstated.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ StaffReport TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 5 of 24
The second example is Berkeley’s moratorium on speed humps, discussed below.
Impacts on Emergency Vehicles
The most important concern about the use of traffic calming measures is the delay that they
impose on the emergency services, primarily on fire and paramedic vehicles. Police response
is also affected,, but to a lesser degree. These impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter V of
the proposed NTCP. Because oft he importance of this issue to the Fire Department, the
discussion of delay is expanded here.
The Fire Department is most concerned about the vertical deflection measures, especially
speed humps. Fire and paramedic vehicles must come to almost a complete stop before
passing over a speed hump. In many cities, speed humps are the most popular traffic calming
measure. In Palo Alto, there have been numerous citizen requests for speed humps, but staff
has also heard l~om many citizens who are not in favor of humps due to their visual impacts
and the unpleasant driving experience they create. Delays caused by traffic calming
measures could negatively impact the Fire Department’s adopted mission goals of response
times of four minutes or less for 90 percent of fire calls, and six minutes or less for 80
percent of paramedic .calls. In responding to cardiac arrest cases, literally seconds count, in
the patient’s chance forsurvival. In responding to fires, minutes could mean the difference
between a small fire easily contained and one causing tens of thousands of dollars in
property loss and possible injury and death.
Several cities have had or still have moratoria on traffic calming measures, due primarily to
conflicts with the missions of the fire and paramedic services. As an example, the City of
Berkeley, with over 150 speed humps installed since 1990, had so many complaints from the
disabled community and the emergency services that it called a moratorium on further speed
hump installations, which was recently expanded to all vertical deflection measures.
Berkeley conducted an exhaustive study and found that each speed hump causes a delay of
from 5 to 10 seconds for a ladder truck and tfom 2 to 5 seconds for an ambulance. Portland,
Oregon and Austin, Texas have also conducted extensive delay studies of speed humps, with
similar f’mdings. Speed humps are usually installed in a series, so the cumulative delay can
increase quickly. For example, if’the Fire Department ladder truck had to traverse the entire
length of a two-block speed hump installation with three humps per block, the added delay
could range up to 60 seconds. This could constitute a substantial increase in a normal 3 to
4 minute response time. Typically, however, the Fire and Police Departments have become
knowledgeable of the locations of speed humps and other traffic calming measures in Palo
Alto and can choose routes that minimize the number of these measures encountered, thus
minimizing potential increases in response times.
Horizontal deflection measures, such as traffic circles, also delay emergency vehicles, but
considerably less than humps. The Palo Alto Fire Department is less concerned about the
impact of measures such as traffic circles than about speed humps. One reason is that traffic
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 6 of 24
calming measures that are placed at intersection:,: ~;uch as traffic circles and raised
intersections, are less of a problem because emergency vehicles must slow down at
intersections anyway.
The Fire Department is concerned about the possible future proliferation of traffic calming
measures, especially speed humps. The Fire Department emphasizes that all City streets,
including local streets, should be available for possible response routes in emergencies. The
primary access routes might be blocked by traffic, other fire equipment, or might be
impassible due to floods or downed trees. For major emergencies, other cities typically
respond and they are usually not so familiar with Palo Alto’s street network and the location
of traffic calming measures.
The Transportation Division has incorporated the following features in the proposed NTCP
in order to minimize negative impacts on the Fire Department’s mission.
Primary emergency response network. The Fire Department and the Transportation
Division have identified expressways, arterial streets, and collector streets as Palo Alto’s
interim primary emergency response network. The proposed NTCP permits traffic
calming measures on collector streets, but the types of measures allowed thereon are
limited to only thosemeasures permitted by the Fire Department. Traffic calming
measures that physically force lower speeds by means of horizontal and vertical
deflection are not allowed on arterial streets)
Design of traffic calming measures. All traffic calming measures will accommodate the
passage of fire and paramedic equipment, unless the Fire Department approves a specific
exception..~
o Resident Education. Chapter V of the proposed NTCP contains a thorough discussion of
the impacts of traffic calming measures on the Fire Department’s mission. A Fire
Department representative will make a presentation about these impacts at the first
neighborhood meeting where residents begin to plan for a traffic calming project.
Fire Department review. The Fire Department will review all proposals for speed humps
on local streets and all proposals for speed tables and raised crosswalks on collector
streets.
1. The traffic calming measures being considered for Embarcadero Road and, potentially, other arterial roads under the
Residential Arterial Traffic Calming Program, may include roundabouts, medians, and reduction in number of lanes.
Roundabouts, while they do force reductions in speed by means ofhorizontal deflection, are different than the traffic circles
proposed for local and collector streets. Roundabouts are designed to handle arterial traffic volumes at intersection levels
of service that will be better than that provided by traffic signals, and usually will be installed in the place of traffic signals.
They are designed to keep traffic moving slowly and continuously through an intersection, as opposed to a traffic signal with
alternating cycles of fast throughput and long queues of stopped traffic.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page7 of 24
Annual review. As described on pages 15 and 16 of thisreport, an annual review of the
proposed NTCP will be submitted to Council. One purpose of the review is to identify
any cumulative impacts of traffic calming measures on the Fire Department’s mission.
o Removal of’measures. Chapter VIII of the NTCP provides a process by which trial or
permanent traffic calming measures could be removed if the Fire Department found that
they had created unacceptable delays.
7.Limitation of speed hump projects. Speed hump installations will be limited to a
maximum of 50 per, cent of the traffic calming capital budget for each fiscal year.
No special incentives for speed humps. The Transportation Division presented the
proposed NTCP to neighborhood association representatives in March of 2000. This
presentation included a special set of qualifying criteria and an expedited procedure that
would allow speed humps to be installed on low-volume local streets. This provision
recognized the cost-effectiveness of speed humps by making them easier for residents to
obtain than any of the other traffic calming measures, under certain circumstances. The
Fire Department was concerned that this could result in proliferation of the very measure
that causes the greatest problem for emergency response. This. provision is no longer
included in the proposed NTCP.
Automatic limitations. Staff and budget allocations for the proposed program will
automatically limit traffic calming projects to a considerably smaller number than the
anticipated demand, as discussed elsewhere in this staff report. Assuming that these
allocations remain unchanged, it should take several years (if ever) before the number
of traffic calming measures (especially speed humps) could accumulate to the point of
significantly impacting the Fire Department’s response times.
The Fire Department understands that emergencies occur infrequently, while some residents
feel they are besieged by traffic problems 24 hours a day. Therefore the Department feels
that a reasonable number of traffic calming measures should be permitted on local and
collector streets, with careful limitations on the type and quantity, especially on collector
streets. It should be expected, however, that the Fire Department would resist most speed
hump projects, and instead advocate for other types of traffic calming measures. What the
threshold is between a reasonable number of measures and too many can 0nly be defined
with the experience gained as the traffic calming installations progress. In the final analysis,
there must be a balance between the speed of emergency vehicle response (primarily the fire
and paramedic services) versus the neighborhood quality of life improvements that result
from traffic calming: The City’s emergency services, and residents, must keep this balance
in mind in considering each traffic calming project.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page8 of 24
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ISSUES
This staffreport assumes familiarity with the details of the proposed traffic calming program,
Attachment 1. The following discussion focuses primarily on pgl:i~cy issues and impacts of
the proposed program.
Annual Output
The Transportation Division would manage the procedural aspects of the traffic calming
program and produce conceptual designs for traffic calming projects. The Transportation
Division would contract out data collection and the design and construction of temporary and
permanent traffic calming measures. The $100,000 annual capital budget for "spot treatment"
element of the proposed NTCP would be allocated each year approximately as follows:
,*data collection: $10,000
¯design of temporary and permanent measures: $11,000
¯construction of temporary and permanent measures: $77,000
¯reserve for removal of failed measures: $2,000
Costs of neighborhood traffic calming studies, exclusive of trial and permanent installations,
will be in the range of’ $75,000. The costs of trial and permanent installation of traffic
calming devices on a neighborhood-wide basis will vary with the type and number of
measures to be installed. Staff proposes that requests for funding for one, or at the very most
two, neighborhood studies and implementation of their recommendations be submitted to
Council on an annual basis. Thus the amounts of funding requested annually for
neighborhood traffic calming are anticipated to vary year by year.
Costs of individual traffic calming measures are listed in the Appendix of the attached
NTCP. Since most traffic calming projects consist of a group of traffic ca’lming measures,
some examples are presented below of the type and number of projects that might be
constructed on a trial and permanent basis annually with the approved budget for the "spot
treatment" portion of the proposed NTCP:
¯3 .speed hump projects (e.g., with each project consisting of 2 street segments with 2
humps each segment) plus 2 sets of bulbouts2; or
¯1 traffic circle project (e.g., 3 street segments with a total of 2 traffic circles and one other
simple measure); or
¯1 median project (e.g. 3 street segments with a total of 2 - 3 median measures); or
¯a combination of the above.
2. As explained previously, the Transportation Division and the Fire Department have agreed tha~t speed hump
installations will be limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the capital budget for each fiscal year. This is an example of
a 50-50 split between humps and another measure.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 9 of 24
Quality of Design of Traffic Calming Measures
There is a wide range of costs for many traffic calming measures, depending on design
quality. Staff has concluded that "low-budget" designs for traffic calming measures will
usually not be appropriate in Palo Alto, and will therefore typically propose designs that are
at least in the mid-range of the cost/quality spectrum. The above examples are in that mid-
range. Refer to Attachment 4 for a detailed discussion of cost and design issues.
Citizen Participation in Funding and Maintenance of Traffic Calming Measures
The cost issue raises the question of whether or not residents and/or neighborhood
associations, if they so desired, could help pay for construction of traffic calming measures,
and/or fund or provide maintenance. Typically, in Palo Alto, residents have not formally
participated in these activities, nor has the City encouraged it. However, several cities,
including Portland, have formal procedures by which citizens .can pay for traffic calming
measures, thus resulting in their implementation much sooner than otherwise would be the
case. Some cities even require citizens to pay for certain measures. Some cities also depend
on residents to maintain, water and even plant landscaped islands. As described at the end
of Chapter VI of the proposed NTCP, full resident funding will be accepted on an ad-hoc
basis in order to speed up the final construction of an approved traffic calming project.
Staffbelieves that there are a number of practical and legal issues that argue against citizen
participation in the physical construction and maintenance of traffic calming measures. After
eXperience with the current program and/or after further investigation, if staffbelieves that
citizen participation in these matters is workable, staffwill bring the issue to the Commission
and Council for consideration. This would probably occur in conjunction with the annual
report and review of the NTCP.
Traffic Diversion Threshold
Some traffic diversion is inevitable in traffic calming projects because the very purpose of
traffic calming, as expressed by residents seeking traffic calming measures, is to slow drivers
and/or interrupt the shortcutting routes. If a driver perceives a noticeable increase in travel
time due to traffic calming, the driver is likely to seek a faster route, if there is one. Traffic
calming measures that prohibit movements or close streets will obviously cause the affected
drivers to seek alternate routes. In the proposed. NTCP, an increase of up to 25 percent of
existing volume on a local street due to traffic calming measures on an adjacent street is
considered to be acceptable. Trafficdiversion is discussed in detail in the proposed NTCP
in Chapter III, Guideline 8; and in Chapter V under "Solving the Problem or Shifting the
Problem?"
No Parking Zones
Removal of parking spaces may be necessary in order to provide sufficient room to install
some traffic calming measures. For example, curb extensions (a.k.a. bulbouts, chokers) are
raised islands that are placed in areas where parking may be present. Installation of median
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 10 of 24
barriers usually requires moving traffic lanes over toward the curb line, eliminating parking
spaces. Most removals would be only a few parking spaces for each location. Per current
procedure, the City Manager through the City Traffic Engineer approves no parking zones
"wherever it is necessary or desirable" under PAMC Section 10.36.080. The proposed NTCP
will specifically authorize the City Manager through the City Traffic Engineer to approve
no parking zones not to exceed a length of one block each (refer to attached draft ordinance).
Other types of traffic calming installations could require removal of parking for more than
an entire block, such as wholesale narrowing of a street crossection, or restriping of a street
to include bike lanes. Under the proposed NTCP, parking restrictions longer than one block
will require approval of the City Council, as is the general current practice under PAMC
10.44.010 (except that the one-block length is not specified).
Minimum Qualifying Criteria: "Spot Treatment" Projects
The minimum qualifying criteria for traffic calming projects are described in Chapter VII
of the proposed NTCP. The most important minimum criteria for local residential streets are
any two of the following five variables:
a.) minimum 85th percentile speed of 32 mph, plus or minus 5 percent, for local streets and
35 mph, plus or minus 5 percent, for collector streets
b.) minimum volume of 1200 vehicles per day (vpd), plus or minus 10 percent, for local
streets and 4, 000 vpd, plus or minus l O percent, for collector streets
c.) proximity (within 1, O00 feet) of an elementary, middle, or secondary school ~j
d.) evidence (survey or field evaluation) of significant short-cutting (nonsneighborhood)
traffic
e.) an unusual accident history (as defined by six or more crashes, or one fatal crash, in the
prior three consecutive years).
Staff selected these criteria and those for collector streets (next paragraph) after
consideration of the following:
(i)thresholds other cities have employed in traffic calming programs;
(ii)the professional literature regarding the thresholds where speeds .and volumes
become unacceptable to residents;
(iii)a tabulation of the ranges of speeds and volumes measured since 1991 on Palo Alto’s
(iv)
streets.
Professional experienc.e and staff discussion within the Transportation Division
Most cities have established a threshold for minimum 85th percentile speed for their traffic
calming programs of between 30 and 32 mph. For volumes, there is a wide range of what
is considered to be the "environmental capacity" of a local street (i.e.., the volume that
residents feel is the highest that can be tolerated in a residential environment), ranging from
about 1000 to 2500 vehicles per day (vpd).
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 11 of 24
There is less agreement among cities and in the literature regarding appropriate
"environmental" .speed and volume thresholds for residential collector streets, except that
they are higher than those for local streets. Staff proposes qualifying criteria of at least 35
mph and 4000 vpd for residential collector streets. Speed and volume measurements for
qualification would be multiplied by the +5 and +10 percent factors, respectively. Thus, a
speed measurement as low as 33.3 mph would meet the minimum 35mph criterion. A
volume measurement as .low as 3636 vpd would meet the 4000 vpd criterion.
Minimum Qualifying Criteria: Neighborhood Studies
To qualify for neighborhood study consideration, at least two streets in the applicant
neighborhood must meet at least two of the above five threshold criteria or at least three
streets must meet either the volume or speed thresholds.
Evaluative Procedure: "Spot Treatment" Projects and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies
Upon receipt of traffic calming requests supported by a minimum of 25 percent of the
affected households, staffwould make speed and volume measurements and collect data on
the other qualifying variables to determine if the requests meet the above criteria. In order
to account for random daily variability and errors in measurement, speed measurements
would be multiplied by a +5 percent factor and volume measurements by a +10 percent
factor. If any point in the resulting speed or volume range meets or exceeds the appropriate
minimum, that criterion would be satisfied. For example, a speed measurement as low as
30.5 mph (32 + 1.05) would meet the minimum 32 mph speed, criterion. A volume
measurement as low as 1090 vpd (1200 + 1.1) would meet the minimum 1200 vpd volume
criterion. Based on an inventory of speed and volume measurements on Palo Alto streets,
approximately 50 percent of local streets could meet’ each criterion, as modified by the above
factors (but not necessarily both criteria together). Smaller fractions of the local and collector
street network meet the school proximity or commuter shortcutting criteria.
Ranking of Projects:
Each year traffic calming projects that meet the minimum criteria described in Chapter VII
of the NTCP would be placed on a single, prioritized list of qualified "spot treatment" traffic
calming projects and neighborhood studies. The Transportation Division will program
available funding at that time to the highest ranking "spot treatment" projects and request
funding through the annual City budget process.for up to two neighborhood studies.
Qualifying "spot treatment" traffic calming projects and neighborhood studies will each be
ranked according to the following point system:
speeds at or up to 10% more than the minimum threshold, one street::
speeds at or up to 10% more than the minimum threshold, two+ streets:
speeds more than 10% of the minimumthreshold, one street:
speeds more than .10% of the minimum threshold, two+ streets:
1.5 points
3.0 points
2.0 points
4.0 points
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 12 of 24
volumes at or up to 20% more than the minimum threshold, one street: 1.5
volumes at or up to 20% more than the minimum threshold, two+ streets: 3.0
volumes more than 20% of the minimum threshold, one street:2.0
volumes more than 20% of the minimum threshold, two+ streets:4.0
proximity to an elementary, middle, or secondary school, one school:2.5
proximity to an elementary, middle, or secondary school, two+ schools:5.0
evidence of shortTcutting traffic, one street:1.0
evidence of short-cutting traffic, two+ streets:2.0
request supported from more than 50% of residents:2.0
points
points
points
points
points
points
points
points
points
Results of project ranking will be submitted by staff for annual review by the Planning and.
Transportation Commission and approval by Council.
Most cities use a ranking system based on a relatively complex formula that assigns points
for various parameters such as speeds, volumes, presence of sidewalks, schools, etc. The
ranking scheme proposed by staff is intended to be clear, objective, and comprehensive
enough to address key considerations. Exceptions to the annual ranking procedure would
be considered only as a consequence of a) unanticipated impacts of new development of
redevelopment; b) unanticipated impacts of changes in the City’s street network; c)
unanticipated impacts of other traffic calming projects in the City; or d) appearance of
unusual safety problems on a street or in a neighborhood. In one or more of these instances,
staffmay forward a revised list ofrankings for review by the Planning and Transportation
Commission and approval of Council.
City Council and Staff Approvals of Traffic Calming Projects
The current ad-hoc procedure requires City Council approval for trials of all types of traffic
calming projects. As discussed in Chapter IV of the NTCP,. low-impact traffic calming
measures could be installed permanently without a trial period with only City Traffic
Engineer approval. City Council approval would not be required. Certain traffic calming
projects on local streets could proceed to a trial with only City Traffic Engineer approval.
These changes from the current practice would result in faster implementation of certain
types of projects, and would focus C6mmission and Council involvement on the more
complex projects. Table 1 summarizes these issues for various types of traffic calming
projects.
Level of Citizen Support for Traffic Calming Proposals
All traffic calming programs, including that for Palo Alto, require a minimum demonstrated
level of citizen support for traffic calming projects before city staff or elected officials can
consider approving trial and permanent installations. In Chapter VI of the NTCP, the City
administers a survey for a trial installation (if one is required) and a survey for permanent
installation. Table 2 summarizes the degree of required citizen support for various types of
traffic calming projects for those two steps in the process.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 13 of 24
The purpose of citizen surveys is only to provide guidance to staff or Council for decision
making purposes. The decision to implement a traffic calming installation is made based on
a variety of factors, one of which is the result of the citizen survey. The general rationale
behind the varied levels of resident support is that a higher level of support is required for
projects where only staff approval is required. Where Commission and Council approval are
required, residents and property owners can present their opinions at the public hearings in
addition to staff. A higher level of support is required for permanent installations than for
trials, as trials are subject to subsequent decisions. Property owners not living on the
premises are not included in the surveys .for a trial; they have an economic interest in the
property, but are generally not aware of the daily traffic problems, as are actual residents.
Residents of adjacent streets are generally not included in the trial survey unless there is a
strong likelihood of traffic diversion. Residents of adjacent streets where no traffic calming
is proposed have less interest in, and direct knowledge of, traffic issues on the primary
streets where traffic calming measures will be placed, and are therefore likely to vote against
a project.
Citizen support requirements can be raised or lowered to effect a policy objective of having
fewer or more traffic calming projects on the ground, but the higher the level of citizen
support, the less likelihood that a traffic calming project will later have to be removed due
to resident dissatisfaction. The proposed citizen support requirements are similar to those
applied by staff in prior neighborhood studies. However, they are not as rigorous as the 1991
Speed Hump Program (to be superceded by this proposed NTCP), which required support
of two-thirds of households in the project area. They are similar to those of some cities, but
different from those of Others. It is difficult to make a clear comparison because there is a
very wide range of support requirements among cities and among the various subcategories
of projects.
Appeal Procedure
Staff believes that it is appropriate to include an opportunity in the NTCP for citizens to
appeal to Commission and Council a decision by the City Traffic Engineer on permanent
installation of low-impact measures. This is the only decision in the proposed NTCP where
a f’mal installation could be approved without Commission or Council approval. This
procedure is described in Chapter VI of the NTCP. Staff has not included a citizen appeal
procedure for City Traffic Engineer approval of a trial of other simple traffic calming
projects in Chapter VI. This is because subsequent Commission review and approval are
required before a permanent installation could proceed, at which time citizens would have
the opportunity to protest the final project at the Commission meetings.
Flexibility and Annual Review
Staff intends to apply the guidelines and procedures in the proposed NTCP in a flexible
manner in order to deal with unforeseen circumstances inherent in any new program. This
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 16 of 24
¯ program is thus a "living document" that staff expects will be modified from time to time.
As staff gains experience with the program, adjustments would probably need to be made
in the minimum qualifying criteria, ranking system, and!or procedures. Adjustments might
be needed to: obtain a better match between the number of eligible traffic calming projects
and the available budget and staffing; ensure fair and consistent treatment among small and
large traffic¯ calming projects; add or delete traffic calming measures in the acceptable
inventory; adapt to Fire Department concerns as the number of measures increases; address
maintenance issues; f’me tune the citizen funding procedure; or other issues not apparent at
this time. The first year of the program will be treated as a trial, with an evaluation and any
suggested changes brought to the Commission and Council annually thereafter.
Commttnity Awareness
Staff convened a three-hour public workshop on March 16, 2000 in order to present and
solicit input on the proposed traffic calming program. Staff invited representatives from all
72 Palo Alto neighborhood and community associations, community organizations ¯and
business associations. The public was further notified through local newspaper
advertisements and articles, and an announcement on the City’s intemet site. The draft
NTCP booklet (similar to Attachment 1) was mailed to all of the above groups, plus an
additional dozen other members of the public. Approximately 80 people attended the
workshop. About 16 neighborhood associations were represented. The first hour of the
workshop was a staff presentation on the proposed NTCP. The trmal two hours of the
workshop were dedicated to answering questions and receiving public input. The majority
of citizen comments pertained to traffic issues in specific locations, rather than comments
about the proposed plan itself. Many of the comments pertained to conditions on arterial
streets, which are not included in the proposed program. Staff also received several written
comments. Staff made a few small changes to the proposed program as a result of the public
input. A summary of citizen comments is included as Attachment 6.
Citizen awareness of traffic calming was also heightened by a set of November 1999 public
workshops sponsored by the Transportation Division. These workshops were publicized in
the local press and attended by about 90 people. The workshops, presented by a nationally-
recognized traffic calming expert, raised awareness of traffic calming benefits, techniques,
and limitations. By the time this NTCP is approved and implemented, many residents will
have learned of it through their neighborhood associations and the public process with the
Commission and Council. Once the program is ready for implementation, staff will place the
program document (as attached to this staff report) on the City’s interuet site, mail a copy to
each neighborhood association, and have copies available for distribution at City facilities
such as City Hall, the DevelopmentCenter, and the Main Library. Press releases will be sent
to the local newspapers. As discussed elsewhere in this report, staff expects that the number
of traffic calming projects will easily exceed that which the available budget and staffing can
handle. Therefore, some restraint in the marketing of the program will be prudent in order
to avoid raising false expectations that all traffic calming requests will be granted and/or be
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 17 of 24
handled in a timely manner.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Level of Funding and Staff’mg
The proposed "spot treatment" element of the NTCP is based .on an annual budget of
$100,000 that the City Council was already approved for fiscal year 1999-2000 (CIP
100260), and has been carried over to 2000-01. No additional funds have been budgeted.
Continuation of the proposed NTCP beyond 2000-01 depends on .fin-ther Council funding
approval. To put this annual budget in perspective, Palo Alto has spent an average of
approximately $0.85 per capita ($45,000) annually since 1973 for the design and
construction of traffic calming installations and neighborhood traffic studies. The $100,000
budget represents about $1.80 per capita for design and construction of simple traffic
calming projects, representing a substantial increase in Palo Alto’s historic funding for traffic
calming projects. This substantial increase will be even greater when funding and staff’mg
for future neighborhood and complex studies is added in (refer to next section of this report).
Since 1973, the Transportation Division has averaged approximately 0.25 FTE (full time
equivalent staff position) (10 hours/week) for the average annual $45,000 in traffic calming
projects, including neighborhood traffic studies, with a high of about 0.55 FTE (22
hours/week) in the mid-1980s. In many cases, design and even construction was handled in-
house. Given today’s greatly increased Transportation Division workload, no more than 0.25
FTE could be provided ~om existing permanent staff, and there is increasing pressure to
allocate even some of that amount for other projects apart t~om the traffic calming program.
The remainder of 0.3 FTE for the traffic calming program is currently unstaffed, except for
a temporary intern position. Staffbelieves that the $100,000 "spot treatment" traffic calming
program requires a bare minimum staff’mg level of 0.55 FTE and, even at that level, it is
likely that action on some qualified traffic calming requests would need to be deferred to
future program years. In effect, the staff and budget constraints would act as a filter,
allowing only those requests with the highest ranking to actually be implemented.
Though it is difficult to make direct comparison of proposed resources with other cities due
to differences in accounting procedures, some examples follow. Mountain View’s traffic
calming budget is approximately $0.70 per capita annually ($50,000) to cover speed humps
and temporary trial installations of measures such as traffic circles. Depending on how much
additional capital improvement funding might be allocated in any given year to build
permanent measures, Mountain View’s annual per capita budget for traffic calming could
be considered to be in the same ballpark as that proposed for Palo Alto. Approximately one
full-time staff person handles the program. Menlo Park allocates about $1.70 per capita
annually (about $50,000)for simple traffic calming-projects such as signing, striping and
some speed humps. For neighborhood projects, and/or for capital intensive measures such
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 18 of 24
as traffic circles, special funding is requested, resulting in a per capita budget that exceeds
that proposed for Palo A!~to. Menlo Park allocates approximately one full-time staff person
for traffic calming. Port;and’s annual budget for traffic calming has varied depending on
availability of gas tax funds. The current budget of $1 million (for approximately 450,000
residents) includes 6 to 7 full-time ,staff salaries. After discounting staffing costs of
$227,000, approximately $1.70 per capita remains for design and construction of the traffic
calming program. Based on .this limited comparison, Palo Alto’s proposed capital budget
appears to tread middle ground, but with a potential shortfall in staffing of about one-half
"staff position.
The annual NTCP "spot treatment" capital budget of $100,000 funds the data collection,
design and construction for simple traffic calming projects. The Public Works Engineering
and Operations Divisions would be responsible for construction inspection and maintenance,
respectively, of the traffic calming projects. The Police Department would provide any
needed enforcement (expected to’be minimal for most projects). It is anticipated that Public
Works Engineering inspection and Police Department enforcement could be handled by
existing staff with minimal impacts. Staff will continue to monitor these staff’mg needs
annually, and return to Council if additional staff are needed for these functions. As
discussed in a later section of this report, funding for maintenance is not part of this proposed
program, so additional traffic calming measures would add an additional burden to the Public
Works Operations Division.
Neighborhood Studies and Complex and/or Expensive Projects
A single neighborhood study could easily use up to two years’ worth of the $100,000 capital
budget and staffing now available for neighborhood traffic calming. However, these studies
will not be funded or staffed through the existing $100,000 budget. Instead, staff will bring
them to Council on an annual basis, in rank order based on use of the evaluative criteria
described in this report, and request appropriate fimding and temporary staffing to proceed.
They would be placed on a project list that is separate from that for the basic traffic calming
program. Thus, neighborhood studies would not compete with the smaller traffic calming
projects in ranking, fimding or staffing. Portland’s and Menlo Park’s programs are examples
in which neighborhood studies are processed and funded separately from the basic traffic
calming program.
Based on Palo Alto’s experience and that of some other cities, there Will be certain projects
in which the number, type, and/or quality of traffic calming.measures desired by residents
exceeds what can reasonably or fairly be provided by the annual budget for this program,
even if the project is not ~a full neighborhood study. For example, three traffic circles, at
$30,000 each, on each of two streets of a few blocks’ length, would exceed two years of the
NTCP annual capital budget for "spot treatments," thus substantially delayingother smaller
or less costly projects. Another example would be a particularly expensive design that some
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 19 of 24
residents might desire, such asthe $65,000 Professorville traffic circle design mentioned
earlier in this report. In such cases, on an ad-hoc basis, staff might bring these complex
and/or expensive projects to Council to request special funding. Each will, however, be
evaluated using criteria described in this report. Locally, the traffic calming programs of both
Menlo Park and Mountain View allow for special funding requests for expensive projects.
Maintenance
The annual budget of $100,000 for design and construction of low-impact traffic calming
projects does not include funds for the Public Works Operations Division or the Community
Services Parks and Golf Division to maintain the new measures. Each traffic calming
measure would incrementally add to the Operations and Parks and Golf Divisions’
maintenance workload for signs, paint, concrete structures, landscaping (including watering
if no irrigation is provided), and irrigation systems. Public Works emphasizes that the
numerous measures and traffic islands that have already been installed for traffic calming
and other purposes over the years represent a significant unfunded and unstaffed
maintenance burden. As a result, maintenance of these measures is sometimes less than
desirable. Past Council approvals of traffic calming measures have not included additional
funding for maintenance. There is no established funding source for watering ofnonirrigated
traffic calming measures. The Operations and Parks and Golf Divisions do not have funds
to install and maintain new landscaping, nor to perform other maintenance functions on these
and other traffic calming measures. Staff estimates that the proposed "spot treatment" traffic
calming program will generate from $3,000 to $7,000 in annual unfunded maintenance needs
for the $77,000 annual capital expenditures. This will compound annually as the additional
$3,000 to $7,000 is added every year to the maintenance shortfall. This is an unresolved
issue. Implementation of complex neighborhood-wide traffic calming projects would.
increase the amount of unfunded maintenance costs.
Expected Number of Traffic Calming Requests
Staff estimates that perhaps 25 to 40 percent of the City’s local and collector street segments
could meet both the speed and Volume criteria, but not in all of those cases would residents
actually approach the City with a traffic calming request. In the past three years, the
Transportation Division has received about 25 requests annually for help with speeding and
volume problems, but not all of these would qualify under the above criteria or under the full
list of criteria, including short-cut traffic, school proximity, and neighborhood support.
Based on the above indicators, staff estimates very roughly that about 20 - 40 requests for
"spot treatment" traffic calming projects would be received annually, with about half that
number being qualified and placed on the NTCP project list. Limited resources would reduce
the actual number of traffic calming requests that staff could complete annually to a
maximum of approximately four. The result will be a waiting list of requests, with many
carried over to succeeding years. The qualifying speed and volume, as well as other, criteria
that staffis proposing could be raised or lowered for policy purposes of managing the size
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCIvlR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page20 of 24
of the project list (fewer projects on the list would mean less waiting for citizens) or for
decreasing or increasing the eventual number of traffic calming projects on the ground. Staff
expecta- th~e to five annual requests for complex traffic calming studies for the first two
years of~]~ NTCP and one to two afterward.
Time Line for "Spot Treatment" Traffic Calming Projects
Most spot treatment traffic calming projects would require about ten months to reach
approval for a trial installation (NTCP Chapter VI). The remainder of the process--
designing, implementing and evaluating the trial and continuing through approval, design
and installation of the final plan--would take approximately an additional 10 - 14 months,
for a total time of 20 - 24 months. Projects consisting only of speed humps, with a staff-
approved trial and no final design requirements, would require only about 18 months. Low-
impact projects, with no trial period or Council approval required, would require only about
six months total time. These timelines, based on a staffing level of 0.55 FTE, are very similar
to Portland’s’ well-established program, which has considerably more staff per capita than is
proposed for Palo Alto. At a staffing level of 1.0 FTE, the above times could be reduced by
about one-third. Neighborhood studies would take at least twice as long as the above time
frame, due to the need to obtain Council approval and funding for implementation, and the
much greater complexity of those projects.
The above time estimates assume that citizen demand does not exceed the ability ofstaffto
process projects with the staffmg and funding proposed for this program. As discussed
immediately above, this is not likely to be the case. So, many of the new traffic calming
requests might be on the initial waiting list up to 24 months before the above time line would
begin. If construction funds were insufficient in any given year, an additional wait of 12 -
24 months might occur (one or two funding cycles) for construction of approved trial and!or
permanent traffic calming measures. Complex neighborhood traffic calming projects may
have even longer timelines.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
The 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan places great emphasis on livable neighborhoods, to be
achieved, in part, through traffic calming. Under Transportation Goal T-5 ("Neighborhood
Impacts"), Program, T-43 calls for the creation of a neighborhood traffic.calming program,
the recommendation of this staff report. Several transportation policies specifically address
various types of traffic calming measures. A related, but fundamentally different, traffic
calming program for residential arterial streets is advocated in Program T-41. The
Residential Arterial Traffic Calming Program, already underway, is a multi-year program
that will implement physical changes to residential arterials in order to reduce speeds, while
maintaining full arterial traffic volumes and full access for all vehicles and other road users.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 21 of 24
Land Use and Community Design Goal L-9 sets forth policies and programs for attractive,
inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City.
New and Modified Policies
The proposed TCP includes numerous policies that are new and that modify and formalize
existing policies, as summarized below. All the policies have been discussed in prior sections
of this staff report.
¯ New Policies
a. All traffic calming requests would be processed with a standardized procedure and
uniform criteria. The overall result of the new TCP would be a more responsive City
atmosphere to residents’ traffic calming requests, and more projects actually being
implemented.
bo Staffwould be able to initiate all simple traffic calming projects without Commission or
Council direction. Commission and Council involvement would be less than it is now,
and would be focussed on neighborhood studies and the decisions required to implement
major traffic calming projects.
c. The City’ s existing speed hump program would be incorporated into the proposed TCP.
d.Substantial increased demand would be placed on the Public Works Operations Division
for unfunded maintenance of traffic calming measures.
eo For residential local streets, the proposed NTCP implicitly def’mes a volume of 1200 vpd
as the beginning of a potential "problem", and a volume of 2500 vpd as the
"environmental capacity." For residential collector streets, a volume of 4000 vpd is
defined as the beginning of a potential "problem," and the environmental capacity is not
def’med.
g°
Trials of traffic calming measures will usually be limited to three months (trials of past
projects have usually been at least six months).
The City Traffic Engineer would be designated to approve (i) permanent installation of
local street low-impact traffic calming projects; and (ii) trial installation of traffic
calming projects on local streets that force vertical or horizontal movement for speed
control.
Existing Policies Modified
h. Neighborhood studies and complex and/or unusually expensive traffic calming projects
would require Council action for special funding and authorization to proceed, as they
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ StaffReport TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 22 of 24
do now. Additional staffmg for these projects may also be requested.
i.The minimum criteria for staff to qualify a traffic calming project are generally less
restrictive than those currently used.
Existing. Policies Formalized
j. Traffic calming for local and collector streets affirms the role of arterial streets as the
designated and desirable carriers of through traffic.
An increase in volume on a residential local or collector street of up to 25 percent of
existing volume is considered acceptable on most streets, as volume changes of that
magnitude are not perceived by most residents.
1.The City Manager would be designated to approve no parking zones less than one block
long associated with a traffic calming measure.
Demand for traffic calming projects is likely to exceed the proposed staff and budget for
such projects, resulting in a potentially substantial waiting list of qualified traffic calming
projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council adoption of the procedures and criteria for the traffic calming program would not
constitute a project under Article 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Trials
of traffic calming projects are exempt under Article 15306.
A program environmental assessment with a Negative Declaration (Attachment 2) has been
prepared for Council approval for projects consisting only of low-impact traffic calming
measures, which are approved for installation by the City Traffic Engineer.
For all other traffic calming projects, staffwould prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
for each trial traffic calming project. The City Council or Planning and Transportation
Commission would approve the EA if and whenCouncil approves the project for permanent
installation.’ Refer to Table 1 of this staff report that summarizes the environmental
requirements.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will implement this proposed traffic calming program as soon as Council approval is
given.
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ StaffReport TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page23 of 24
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
Program Environmental Assessment with Negative Declaration for Low-Impact
Traffic Calming Projects
Location of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures in Palo Alto
Quality of Design of Traffic Calming Measures
Draft Ordinance Amending PAMC Section 10.36.080
Summary of citizen comments from March 16, 2000 workshop
COURTESY COPIES:
1. Attendees of March 16, 2000 neighborhood traffic calming workshop
Prepared by:Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation official
Reviewed by:
Division Head Approval: ~~z~ /-~~~ ~
~eph l~tt] Chie~ Transportation Official
H:\CMRs\P-TC\ Staff Report TCCMR6.doc rev 11/30/00 Page 24 of 24
ATTACHMENT ONE (City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program)
HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS REPORT. IT HAS BEEN REVISED AND
IS ATTACHED TO THE JANUARY 16, 2001 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ON
THIS TOPIC.
ATTACHMENT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Project Title: Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic-Calming Program--Installation of Low-.
Impact Traffic Calming Measures on Local Streets
=
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Contact Person and Phone Number: Carl Stoffel (650) 329-2552
4.Project Location: City of Palo Alto
5.Application Number(s): Not Applicable
6.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as Lead Agency
7.General Plan Designation: Various
8.Zoning: Various
=
Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not
limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site
features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Installation of low-impact traffic calming measures on local streets may occur under the
City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (TCP). Trafficcalming refers to
the use of engineering measures to make permanent physical changes that reduce traffic
speed and/or volume, thereby improving safety and livability for street users and
residents. Low-impact traffic.calming measures are those that do not force speed
reduction by altering the travel direction (vertically or horizontally) or lane widths beyond
standard traffic engineering criteria for normal traffic flow, nor block any traffic
movements. Examples are gateways, bulbouts, on-street parking, street narrowing,
channelization and specialty signing. Examples of measures that are not low-impact
measures are speed humps, traffic circles, street closures, diverters, median barriers,
turn restrictions, and some others, plus any measure on a collector street. A minimum
width of 20 feet for two-way travel will be maintained. For one-way sections (such as
C:\WP&MS\NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 1 of 17
where a median splits the two travel directions), a minimum width of 16 feet will be
maintained for one-way travel where the one-way sections are longer than 30 feet. Where
the one-way section is less than 30 feet long, a minimum width of ten feet will be
maintained for one-way travel. These widths are the minimum required by the Fire
Department for emergency access and by the Transportation Division for normal traffic
flow. Because low-impact measures do not physically force drivers to reduce speeds,
their potential negative impacts are virtually zero, even on higher volume streets. Low-
impact measures may reduce speeds and volumes slightly, but their primary beneficial
impacts are improved aesthetics and neighborhood identity.
Upon the request of residents and with the approval of the City Traffic Engineer, low-
impact traffic calming measures may be implemented .on local residential streets. To
qualify for consideration by the City, a resident’s request must be supported by a petition
signed by 25 percent of the households on each block where action is requested, with
each household allowed one signature. Or, the request may come from a neighborhood
association. The street where the measures are desired must.have a minimum 85th
percentile speed of 32 mph. Speed measurements will be multiplied by a +5 percent
factor to allow for errors in measurement and random daily variability. If any point in the
resulting speed range meets or exceeds the above minimum, this criterion will be
-satisfied. In addition, the traffic volume must be at least 1200 vehicles per day (vpd).
Volume measurements will be multiplied by a +10 percent factor to allow for errors in
measurement and random daily variability. If any point in the resulting volume range
meets or exceeds the above minimum, this criterion will be satisfied. Both the speed and
volume criteria will be satisfied if the volume exceeds 2500 vpd irrespective of the 85th
percentile speed; or if the 85th percentile speed exceeds 34 mph irrespective of the
volume.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
Traffic calming projects discussed in this environmental assessment could be installed
only on local streets that are predominately residential in nature; i.e., where at least 50
percent of the total street frontage is developed in or zoned for single or multiple family
land uses.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement).
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated, by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Hydrology/VVater
Quality
Land Use/Planning
Transportation/Traffic
UtilitieslService
C:\WP&MSkNTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 2 of 17
(
Air Quality
Biolo~lical Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housin9Public Services
Recreation
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least
one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
X
Project Planner Date
C:\WP&MSLNTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 3 of 17
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are~
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported
if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as we!l as operational impacts.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,
less than significant with mitigation, or less than .significant. :Potentially Significant
Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
signific.ant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Signiflcant!mpact." The lead.agency
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the.tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify
the following: ¯
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify-and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures basedon the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are."Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific Conditions for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances).
C:\WP&MS~qTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 4 of 17
7)
8)
9)
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated..
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies .should normally .address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
I.AESTHETICS. Would.the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but’ not
limited, to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II.
a)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
. Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1,2
1,2
1,2,3
1,2
No
Impact
X
X
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether ,mpacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California DepL of Conservation. as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 1, 2 X
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
X
C:\WP&MS\NTMP TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 5 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
b)
c)
III,
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
IV.
non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
t,2
No
Impact
X
X
to non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:X
X
X
X
Conflict with or obstruct .1, 2
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?¯ ~
Violate any air quality standard 1, 2
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
Result in a cumulatively 1, 2
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to 1, 2
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors t, 2
affecting a substantial number of
people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse t, 2
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
X
C:\WP&MS\NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 6 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
b)
Resources
c)
d)
e)
f)
b)
c)
Sources
Have a substantial adverse 1, 2
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
USFish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect 1, 2
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the 1, 2
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies-1, 2
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an 1, 2
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse 1, 2
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse 1, 2
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5? "
Directly or indirectly destroy a 1, 2
unklue paleontological resource
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\WP&MSkNTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 7 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
d)
VI.
b)
c)
d)
e)
Sources
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains,1, 2
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people or structures to 1, 2
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i)Rupture of a known 1, 2
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
~ Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication
42..
ii) Strong seismic ground 1, 2
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground 1, 2
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?1, 2
Result in substantial soil erosion 1, 2
or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or 1, 2
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as 1, 2
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Have soils incapable of 1, 2
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
C:\WP&MS\NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 8 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
¯ , PotentiallySignificant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard to the 1, 2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e)For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or Working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
1,2,3
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\WP&MS\NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 9 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a 1, 2
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality 1, 2
1,2
1,2
standards or waste discharge -
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete ’
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
¯ area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-¯
site?
d)SubstantiallY alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
1,2
1,2
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impac
X
X
X
X
X
C:\WP&MS\NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 10 of 17
f)
g)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
i)
J)
a)
b)
c)
X=
b)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systemsor
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade 1, 2
water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year t, 2
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood 1, 2
hazard area structureswhich
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Expose people or structures to a 1, 2
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami,1, 2
or mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the pro’ect:
Physically divide an established 1, 2
community?
Conflict with any applicable land 1, 2
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
. adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable 1, 2
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability t, 2
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability 1, 2
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\WP&MSkNTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 11 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
XI.
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
XII.
Sources
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or=other.land
use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or 1, 2
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or 1, 2
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
A substantial permanent 1 - 2
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or 1, 2
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an ¯1, 2
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity 1, 2
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
Induce substantial population 1, 2
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
project:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\WP&MS~qTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 12 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
b)Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any
c)
Sources
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1, 2, 3
1,2,3
1,2,3
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
1,2 X
C:\WP&MSkNTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 13 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources ¯Potentially
Significant
Issues
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include 1, 2
recreational facilities or require
the construction or ~xpansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the
a) Cause an increase in traffic 1, 2
which is substantial in relation tO
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or 1, 2
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic 1., 2
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards 1, 2, 3
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency 1, 2, 3
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking 1,2, 3
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies,1, 2, 3
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
,X
No
Impact
X
x
x
x
project:
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 1, 2
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
C:\WP&MS~NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 14 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
b) Require or result in the 1, 2
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the 1, 2, 3
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the
construction .of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies 1,. 2
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the 1,2
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be sewed by a landfill with 1, 2
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposalneeds?
g) Comply with federal, state, and 1, 2
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the 1, 2
potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\WP&MS\NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 15 of 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
,Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
SOURCE REFERENCES:
1.Planning Commission Staff Report May 10, 2000 City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program. "
2.Ci_ty of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, May 10, 2000.
3.Traffic Calming, State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, Institute of Transportation Engineers, August
1999.
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES:
I(c) Aesthetics? Low-impact traffic calming measures require signing and striping which, when little or
no signing or striping is present on the street, will be quite noticeable in the street scape. Some of these
measures will incorporate landscaping as replacement for formerly paved areas. In past installations in
Palo Alto and other jurisdictions, the addition of new landscaped areas has more than offset the negative
visual impact of new signs and striping. Other measures that do not incorporate landscaping will be more
visually intrusive, such as additional roadway striping or new channelization or berms. Notwithstanding,
in past projects in Palo Alto and other jurisdictions, the aesthetic impact from these latter measures has
not been sufficiently disruptive to be considered significant.
VII(g) Interference with Emergency Response Plan? As explained under "Description of the Project",
low-impact traffic calming measures do not substantially change the geometry of the traveled way in a
manner that would substantially alter existing travel patterns or route availability. Thus, they would not
interfere with an emergency response plan.
XHI(a) Impact on Fire and Police Protection Services? As explained under "Description of the Project",
low-impact traffic calming measures are specifically designed not to restrict or delay emergency vehicles,
including fire, paramedic, and police vehicles.
C:\WP&MS\NTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page 16 of 17
Impact on Other Public Services? .Such services include the Postal Service, Palo Alto Sanitation
Company, City street sweepers, maintenance, and other occasional governmental or quasi-governmental
services. Low-impact traffic calming measures will not interfere with normal vehicle travel, including the
above serviCes. Some of these measures (e.g., gateways, curb bulbouts) will intel’fere with street sweepers
because these measures typically protrude into the street beyond the curb line. "l’~ese measures will be
designed with the minimum acceptable curvature to allow acceptable street sweeping. Based on past
experience in Palo Alto, some are~:~ of the street adjacent to these devices may not be swept as well as
the’~~ were before the measures were iiastalled, but these impacts have not been significant in the past.
XV(a) Increase in Traffic? As explained under "Description of the Project", low-impact traffic calming
measures do not force speed reduction by altering travel direction or lane widths beyond standard traffic
engineering criteria. Thus, they do not cause noticeable diversion of traffic volumes to other streets.
XV(d) Hazards Due to Design Features? Low-impact traffic calming devices do not introduce-abrupt
changes in vertical and horizontal alignment. Some devices are placed in the traveled way, such as
buibouts. Such devices are signed and striped according to standard California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) guidelines and accepted engineering practice, resulting in no significant traffic
hazard.
XV(e) Inadequate Emergency Access? Refer to discussion under item XIII(a) above.
XV(f) Inadequate Parking Capacity?. Some low-impact traffic calming devices, such as bulbouts, are
placed in the roadway, possibly displacing some on-street parking. Such displacements are small, even
cumulatively. Furthermore, there.is usually an oversupply of on-street parking in most Palo Alto
neighborhoods. Consideration of traffic calming devices includes involvement of neighborhood residents.
If a project Were proposed that substantially impacted parking supply, the affected residents would decide
if this impact were significant enough to not pursue the project, and the project would not be pursued.
XV(g) Conflict with Plans Supporting Alternative Transportation? Low-impact traffic calming devices
will be designed in a manner that accommodate transit and other large vehicles. Some traffic calming
devices require that lanes be narrowed at specific locations, thus lessening the shared space available for
bicyclists and drivers. Vehicle speeds and .volumes will determine the extent to which bicyclists feel
negatively affected. Most of these low-impact traffic calming projects will be installed on low-volume
streets¯ If aproject were proposed on a particularly high-volume street and/or a designated bicycle route,
the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee would be involved in the review process. Based on this
review, projects that could produce a significant negative impact on bicyclists would not go forward.
Projects with lesser impacts, however, could proceed¯ Any localized less-than-significant impacts on
bicyclists would be balanced by the overall benefit to bicyclists and neighborhood residents attained
through the traffic calming devices. In general, traffic calming helps make the residential street
environment more conducive to use of alternative transportation modes by causing drivers to slow down
and/or change their routes to the major streets.
XVI(c) New or Expanded Stormwater Drainage Facilities? Some low-impact traffic calming measures are
constructed in the traveled way, including in the gutter (e.g. bulbouts). These measures are designed to
keep the gutter unobstructed, or new catchbasins and connections to the stormwater system are
constructed. No new water runoff is generated by these measures. The modifications to the drainage
system to accommodate existing gutter flows are relatively minor and will cause no noticeable
environmental effects.
C:\WP&MSkNTMP\TCP Low Impact EIA.doc Page ! 7 of 17
ATTACHMENT 3
o-~ o
7
oueJe^ I=1
~ e6P!Jel°O
,~el~6UDl
uo~!ppv
6u!uueqc)
uo~^l
w
W
W
w
o
lie
I
ATTACHMENT 4
QUALITY OF DESIGN OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Some traffic calming measures, such as speed humps, are relatively inexpensive at
approximately $3500 each, while a landscaped "generic" traffic circle costs about
$30,000 each. Some measures have relatively little variation in the quality of the design,
so the cost per unit is relatively fixed. These measures are speed humps, speed tables,
r.aised crosswalks, striping and signage. Other measures can be constructed with a wide
range of design options that address various levels of aesthetic, compatibility, and
maintenance concerns, resulting in a wide range of costs. For example, a traffic circle can
be constructed simply with a ring of asphalt berm or concrete curb and appropriate signs
at a construction cost of about $7000 (e.g., the design the City has employed for trial
circles). The generic traffic circle design, which was approved by the Architectural
Review Board and City Council in 1996, includes quality landscaping and automatic
irrigation and costs about $30,000 to construct (e.g., Bryant/Addison and Lytton/Fulton
intersections). A traffic circle design for the Professorville area that included high-quality
brickwork in addition to landscaping and irrigation, plus a design that was specifically
reflective of the area’s architectural details, was expected to cost $65,000 to construct (but
was never constructed due to the high cost). The above costs do not include the cost of
design, which increases with the uniqueness of the design and the level of architectural
details.
Other examples of measures with a wide range of design options are curb bulbouts and
street closures. Like the circles, these measures, can be constructed with simple asphalt
berms or concrete curbs and appropriate signage for about $5000 (the design the City has
employed for trial measures). A mid-level design that leaves the gutter open for drainage,
provides minimal landscaping and.no irrigation can be constructed for about $12,000
(e.g. closures at Bryant/Lowell and Bryant/El Verano intersections). A high aesthetic/low
maintenance design, costing up to $40,000, results, in a seamless extension of the existing
curb, provides new catch basins, large landscaped areas, automatic irrigation, and a shape
to accommodate street sweeping (e.g. closures at Stanford/Ash and College/Birch
intersections).
With some minor exceptions, the low-budget versions of traffic calming measures
provide essentially the same traffic calming effect as the expensive designs. The low-
budget designs would result in substantially more traffic calming projects being
constructed within the approved $100,000 budget. However, the tradeoffs are (i) a
substantially heavier maintenance requirement and,-thus, potentially inadequate
maintenance; (ii) possible conflicts with the urban design goals of the Comprehensive
Plan (specifically Goal L-9) and the standards for review of the Architectural Review
Board (PAMC 16.48.120); and (iii) less sense of "permanence" for residents who may
make decisions about their residence based on a permanent traffic calming plan. For these
reasons, staff has concluded that the low-budget designs for traffic calming measures will
usually not be appropriate in Palo Alto, and will therefore typically propose designs that
-ar...e at least in the mid-range of the cost/quality spectrum.
ATTACHMENT 5
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING
CHAPTER 10.36 [STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING - GENERALLY] OF
TITLE 10 [VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC] OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULATING VEHICLE PARKING
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAINas
follows:
SECTION i. The Council hereby finds as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
10.36.080 [Stopping or parking prohibited - Signs required], the
City Manager is authorized to appropriately sign or mark. certain
places so that no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in
any of said places; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Altb Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program requires removal of parking spaces .in order to provide
sufficient room to install certain traffic calming measures.
SECTION 2. Section 10.36. 080 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to add subsection (a) (4) to read as
follows :
(4) On. one or both sides of the street for a length not to
exceed one block,, where traffic calming measures have been
installed under the City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program; and where such measures require that the
portion of the street normally available for parking be used
instead for movement of traffic.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the provisions of this
ordinance do not constitute a project under Article 15378 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Each individual
traffic calming project will be evaluated under CEQA when the
project is approved.
ATTACHMENT 6A
Neighborhood. Traffic Calming Workshop
Thursday, March 16, 2000
Senior Center, Avenidas Room
Palo Alto
Presenters:Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Number of Attendees: -80
Issues to be dealt with,by Transportation Division:
1.Slide 24: perhaps we can write that it is a two-way count if applicable and on-way if
applicable.
2. Slide 25: does it include speed tables, does it include streets that have gutters?
3.Recommend that modify criteria for streets that do not have sidewalks and gutters.
What defines a collector street and how are the speeds collected?
Lives on Louis/Charleston - traffic goes by at 60mph - where do you get $100,000 as
the amount to pay for the project. Because traffic is a main concern for many of the
citizens. - How did that number come into being? (Lots of support for this comment) it
almost seems ludicrous how the spending is with the council chambers being
refurbished and there is not that much money being spend on traffic - a major problem
in Palo Alto!
Why isn’t the safe speed of 25mph used for this traffic-calming program? The criteria
are sensitive to neighborhood set-up. The criterion is too broad. There needs to be more
of an interest in 25mph. Thereis a concern that what we are saying is being ignored.
Some sensitivity to what is really safe needs to be addressed.
o Like to offer self-help on the traffic enforcement and 85t~ percentile - there is an
assembly bill that would not have this 10mph buffer. Encourage you to work and
support the assembly bill 1885 and have a strict mph so that all of that can be strictly
enforced. Everyone should write a letter to their assemblyman.
Harland Pinto - University Avenue Resident: one of problems with proposal is that
there is nothing about conflict management problems within the citizens. For example
the speed humps can be put into place with a 50% vote and you could have a speed
hump in front of your house. Your engineers are putting spee.d humps in places that are
really not needed. The solution could be a better design process. There are going to be
other impacts that are not going to be good for the neighborhood. There needs to be
more money spent and more time spent so that better methods are being implemented.
In terms of the citizen funding - when the property owners get a say - in the case of the
commercial property owners - does that include the commercial property owners also?
Do they have a say?
Comments regarding Funding:
Jeff Brown: Traffic-calming devices don’t really work - what is the purpose? How does
on-street parking really do anything to slow people down? I agree that 100,000 is
nothing considering that the need is even more. Spending 100,000 on a program that
will take a lot of time and money and energy and end up with a product that in many
cases will hurt rather than help the product. The fire department doesn’t even want
some of the things. It is silly to spend this money. You show that you do not understand
traffic calming. By painting curbs, cutting limbs in front of stop signs, take down some
of the signs - bike boulevard - what does it really do? This program will end up with
other obstructions. I think that you do not include roundabout data in this program. It
should not be included in this program because this is not traffic calming - it is
neighborhood appeasement. It is a neighborhood pacification program. None of the
stuff that Reid Ewing said is statistically valid! Statistically speaking a roundabout is a
safety enhancement. It is disturbing that we can really be doing better. This is a
situation that the problem really needs to be understood and someone needs to deal with
it in a direct way.
2. Slide 29: here chuckles from citizens about the citizen funding
Lives on a collector street - question about citizen funding - how are you going to deal
with big complex project with citizen funding? Our neighborhood puts a lot of work
into this program... (Carl made it clear that the neighborhood studies are individual to
this proposed NTC).
Comment on the collector streets - collector streets have the most traffic and have the
fewest tools - perhaps we can have chicanes - because the police and fire department
don’t like vertical devices. This particular plan for the 100,000 is it on-going? \
City Councilmen - Mtn. View has a budget of 50,000 and they installed cheap devices
and it worked and now there are not that many requests.
6.I wanted clarification for the funding. Is there any specific funding for residential
arterials? Because everyone here just has issues on arterials. What .is the issue with
arterials?
Comments regarding Collectors:
1. Charleston/Carlson? - Thousands of cars are speeding - dropping kids off- making U-
turns in the middle of the street to walk their kids across the street. A lot of money
spent on things not needed - we need more money. There is a sign that says No Right
On Red and people from. the neighborhood don’t even stop.
2.Hawthorne Ave/Downtown North - spent a lot of time and money and there is nothing
being done. What is the next step for that?
Middlefield/California - Jordan middle school - heavily traffic area in the morning -
nothing in the plan for arterials. That is too bad. Dangerous for kids.
Charleston Road Area: totally out of control the cityis doing nothing about it - the
citizens have to do something about it because the police refuse to answer to all of the
problems. There were convoys of trucks going on Saturday - gasoline tankers,
industrial trucks, etc. San Antonio road is just a Couple of streets down - they should be
using San Antonio instead of Charleston. Many cars do 60mph -there is drag racing! It
is a serious problem, it is a policing problem; it is a council problem - think that the
council is telling the police not to go answer to those problems. No one is answering the
telephone calls left at the police station or with the city. Speeders also run the red lights.
There are many low cost things that can be done - many neighbors have asked for
things but they have been turned down. - Four way stops can be put in. synchronize the
signals. Add signs, put in crosswalks. The 100,000 shows how uncommitted the council
is to answering the problems with traffic. They are all for industrial parks and big office
buildings. They are for getting as many cars in at any costs. San Antonio could be
improved. Oregon Expressway could be depressed into a freeway and made into a
major cross-town route, use traffic circles to calm streets. What should we do to help
solvethe problem - I don’t want to sit out there and be the policeman. We can’t have a
bike lane, the sidewalk is a bike lane.
I do belong to the people who are affected in the smaller years. I have lived on Ramona
Street on Meadow and Alvarado? I would like to propose that there are very simple
ways to take care of our problems. We need to block the street at Bryant and E1
Verano! You made a mistake you should have blocked the creek at block it only at
Meadow on Ramona, at Meadow/South Court and Meadow/Bryant we would block
traffic at streets that have electric signals and not allow through traffic. Ramona is only
30 feet wide. If you park two cars with the wheels in the gutter, If there are two cars
passing each other they only have two feet of clearance. It is very simple and very
inexpensive, All of the garbage trucks have a key and so the emergency vehicles can
have a key too. I need to talk to Ashok Aggarwal.
Why are the streets that are laid out for wide traffic and expect people to drive slowly.
The street that I have been living on has had the street restriped twice in the same area.
Also there is the changing of the radius of the curbs. Why isn’t that part of the plan?
7.I am foggy with the idea with how the speed i~ going to be controlled on Charleston.
Did I miss that somewhere in this presentation?
Comments regarding Arterials:
Not thrilled about having Traffic Calming on embarcadero road or on arterial roads.
They are arterials and need to carry traffic and that is what they are for. In 1998 there
was a study that said that the speed on arterials need to be 30-35mph-the CA speed
control law? Says something about using police radar and using police radar. The
recommendations have been on the table for two years so why isn’t it being addressed?
Back to Embarcadero Road and live on Fulton Street. I walk it and drive it and it is
going crazy! I used to go 37 and now I go 31. Raise the speed limit and it would be
fine. Synch the lights. People could get ticketed and people could get ticketed.
If you require a half person for this program. Do you have that person now? How much
time are you devoting to the arterials? That is not going to happen before April for
Embarcadero and how much Police data do you have on Embarcadero on red light
running? Do you have that data? I asked Lynn Johnson in 1998 about the number of
accidents on Embarcadero - they don’t have the personnel to do that. Do you have the
data for citations for trucks over 7 tons. Do you know how many overweight trucks use
Embarcadero?
Other Comments:
1.Why do we do use household and then property owners when talking about slide 28 -
why don’t we just keep the same people voting for the trial andpermanent?
2~Last July the City Council turned down the neighborhood petition and request at
Lincoln/Channing for a stop sign, but they did a fast track on a study for a traffic
calming study on Channing - where is that in the process?
The traffic task force of the neighborhood association says that you would want
comments from the association - the comments are that we .are doing this because we
want an entire neighborhood calming. There is concern about the 85th percentile speed
because of the safety issue that is addressed in the criteria. If you could address what is
the main point of having the 85th percentile speed. In terms of cut-through traffic, they
have 50% or more volume that do not meet the criteria. If there is cut-through traffic
that is more than 30%, that should be a consideration. If there are streets that have.
schools, day care there should be more of a consideration for those streets. Unless we
can find ways to reduce speeds on Stanford Avenue - how can we make more people
walk to school? It is not clear given the range of devices, how are we going to actually
cause people to actually drive the speed limit? Could you make it more clear how a
neighborhood could get a study started - does the neighborhood have to have every
street included in the study? Does each street need to have an issue?
Concern about where a neighborhood needs a neighborhood-wide study instead
individual streets. Has been working on downtown north and has been working since ¯
1997 and wouldn’t have bothered with getting a neighborhood traffic study because we
could have each individual street come and say that they want speed humps that way.
You are going to lose the sense of neighborhood traffic calming because people from
individual streets are going to come and there is no way to keep it a neighborhood
issue.
If you require a half person for this program. Do you have that person now? How much
time are you devoting to the arterials? That is not going to happen before April for
Embarcadero and how much Police data do you have on Embarcadero on red light
running? Do you have that data? I asked Lynn Johnson in 1998 about the number of
accidents on Embarcadero - they don’t have the personnel to do that. Do you have the
data for citations for trucks over 7 tons. Do you know how many overweight trucks use
Embarcadero?
Thanks the staff for being there. I would like to invite your comments on how Palo Alto
is going to handle all of the traffic for the coming years because of all of the commerce
that is going to filter in.
Coming to Ramona every morning and I hit 7 ti’ucks. A city ordinance says that trucks
are not allowed between 7am and 7pm that are longer than 10 feet. They keep all of the
engines going and people are trying to eat on the patio. Why isn’t there any
enforcement?
10.Denver, CO - Henry Barns: said that filling paint buckets with sand and they can route
traffic the way they want to. So instead of paying thousands of dollars to pay for
consultants then install buckets for a few days and then see how it goes.
11. Who levies fines .for the tracks?
ATTACHMENT 6B
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Workshop
Post-Workshop Comments from Attendees
April 13, 2000
I ask that the qualifying criteria not to be completely rigid and that your office allow
itself the discretion to.make special determinations; I would like to see this written
into the final draft.
Where do you get $100,000 as the amount to pay for the project? How did that
number come into being?
a) I agree that $100,000 is nothing considering that the need is even more.
b) Audience chuckles about the citizen funding.
c) We need more money and more staff.
3. Why isn’t the safe speed of 25mph used for this traffic calming program?
4.There needs to be more money spent and more time spent so that better methods are
being implemented.
5. Does citizen funding of projects include commercial property owners as well?
6. Collector streets have the most traffic and have the fewest tools - perhaps we can
have chicanes.
7. Why isn’t the changing of the radius of the curbs in the plan?
8.Why do we use household and then property owners when talking about slide 28 -
why don’t we just keep the same people voting for the trial and permanent
installations?
9. Concern that neighborhoods need studies instead 9f just individual streets.
10.You are going to lose the sense of neighborhood traffic calming because peoplefrom
individual streets are going to come and there is no way to keep it a neighborhood
issue.
Because monies for the program arerelatively low, there may be a bias to select the
easy projects, such as speed humps on low volume street (600-1200vpd), at the same
expense of higher volume neighboring streets.
12.Could the intended outcome of the program proposed in Chapter VIII be to re-
designate local streets into collector streets because of the high volume of shortcutting
traffic?
13.Traffic calming should emphasize safety and reducing speed, rather than worrying
about volume.
14.
15.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Mailing out to PTA traffic safety reps with a copy of the draft document and inform
them of the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting.
Cut-through traffic criterion is not sensitive to how much there might be (maybe we
should consider Mountain View’s system).
Traffic calming does not address the many other dangerous behaviors by drivers.
Enforcement is essential, and we need more of it.
a) More police cars to enforce safety and legal speed limits.
Vehicle~ per day in your criteria should have a special factor for trucks, especially on
collector streets such as California Avenue and Stanford Avenue.
We believe that using minimum 85t~ percentile speeds of 32 mph on local streets and
35 mph on collector streets would impose unacceptably high risks on pedestrians and
cyclists using neighborhood streets.
Why not engineer our local and collector streets so that drivers will not even consider
going more than the speed limit of 25mph?
Missing criteria for minimum qualifying criteria: percentage of cut-through traffic
and whether a street is adjacent to a school.
22.We’therefore suggest that on local streets where the volume is not over 1200vpd or
85th percentile speeds are not over 32mph, traffic calming requests be considered if
cut-through volume is in excess of 30%.
23.We also suggest that special consideration be given to traffic calming requests on
streets bordering schools (public or private) and day care centers.
24.In addition, the draft document makes reference to neighborhood-wide projects and
indicates that they will be received and prioritized following the procedures of this
program. We believe that cl.arification of the procedure is necessary. The draft
document is silent as to what the requirements are for a neighborhood to qualify for
such a project.
25.We would like to see a broader range of effective traffic calming measures included
among those likely to be permitted on collector streets.
26.Arteries must be used to stop side s~reets from deteriorating into cut-through speed
zones.
AI-i’ACH ME NT D
Nei-ghborhood
Calming Progro,,b
Draft
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Transportation Division
January 16, 2001
CITY OF PALO ALTO
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II.
III.
IV.
Vo
VI.
VII.
VIII
INTRODUCTION ......’ .........i ....2
OBJECTIVES ......................5
GUIDELINES .......................8
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ............11
PROS AND CONS OF TRAFFIC CALMING .......13
PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING TRAFFIC "
CALMING MEASURES ...................17
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING REQUESTm
MINIMUM QUALIFYING AND RANKING CRITERIA...23
REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ....25
Traffic Calming Program
Page 1 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
CITY OF PALO ALTO
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
for Local and Collector Streets
I.INTRODUCTION
The City receives numerous requests, complaints, and suggestions from residents about traffic
.issues--pertaining to maintenance, stop signs, visibility impairment, parking, traffic signal timing,
lane striping, speeding, traffic volumesl tracks, crashes, and others. City staff responds in several
ways to these ,requests. For example, routine maintenance of streets, signing, signals and
landscaping is handled by the Public Works and Utilities Departments. Violations of speed limits
and other rules of the road are handled by the Police Department. Stop sign requests are evaluated
by the Transportation Division and require City Council approval. Specific operational issues--for
example, a parking problem or a traffic lane configuration problem are routinely investigated by the
Transportation Division. The Transportation Division also manages the Residential Arterial Traffic
Calming Program, as discussed on the next page. The Transportation Division and the Police
Department Often address student safety and transportation issues by undertaking special school-
related studies. The Transportation Division is also active in several organizations dealing with
traffic concerns at the regional level.
Somewhat different than the above traffic issues are the concerns of some residents about chronic
problems affecting local residential streets--speeding, commuter shortcutting, or just too much
traffic--affecting areas ranging from a single block to an entire neighborhood. Addressing these
problems poses a challenge because they are not easily adch’essed by the usual City actions described
above. For example, the degree of speeding is often not severe or frequent enough to warrant taking
Police Department time away from other problem areas. Commuter shortcutting is not a traffic
violation that can be addressed by enforcement. Educational techniques that are provided by the
Police Department or Transportation Division can help address these issues to some degree, but
require continual effort.. Often, the City has addressed such neighborhood traffic problems only
when the issues were pervasive enough to affect an entire neighborhood. The result is a sometimes
uncertain procedure or a complex neighborhood-wide traffic study that requires considerable City
Council involvement. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) makes it easier for the
City to respond efficiently and fairly to neighborhood traffic problems by:
¯establishing a defined fomaal procedure for evaluating requests for "spot" treatments
affecting one or a few streets without causing noticeable spillover traffic onto other
residential streets;
¯providing a dedicated funding source for these "spot" treatments; and
¯establishing a defined formal procedure for requests for more extensive studies of
neighborhood-wide traffic calming measures.
Traffic Calming Program.January 16, 2001
Page 2 D R A ~: 1"PATCP.11
For purposes of this program, traffic calming is defined as the combination of mainly physical
measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, improve safety
for non-motorized street users, and improve neighborhood livability. Traffic calming measures
include devices such as speed humps and traffic circles, and are discussed in more detail in Chapter
IV. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program unifies and formalizes existing City policies and
programs relating to protection of neighborhood streets from impacts of vehicular traffic¯ The City
Council has established a one-year budget of $100,000 in order to fund the design and installation
of simple traffic calming measures under this program. Some expensive projects, such as multiple
¯ fully landscaped circles and island~, will require a separate funding allocation from the City Council.
Projects involving an entire neighborhood will be received and prioritized following the procedures
of this program, but will require special approval and funding from the City Council to be
undertaken. The Transportation Division manages the overall program, including design and
construction. The Public Works Operations Division is responsible for maintenance. The Police
Department provides any needed enforcement. Figure 1 illustrates how the traffic calming program
fits in with the other ways the City addresses traffic issues.
The traffic calming program described here is only for residential local and collector streets. Figure
2 shows which streets are local, collector and arterial streets. Local and collector streets must be
predominantly residential in character in order to qualify for the traffic calming program (i.e.,
having at least 50 percent of street frontage in single or multiple family uses). Traffic issues related
to arterial streets are quite different from those of local and collector streets, as the purpose of
arterial streets is to carry larger volumes of through traffic in a relatively free-flowing manner. In
fact, many of the problems that residents experience on local and collector streets result from
congested traffic conditions on arterial streets. This Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program does
not address arterial street issues, except that a neighborhood traffic calming project might include
traffic flow improvements on a nearby arterial street that are designed to attract shortcutting traffic
out of a neighborhood and back onto an arterial. Indeed, reducing traffic problems on local and
collector streets depends partly on maintaining free-flowing arterial traffic. Changes to arterial
streets that impede free traffic flow make traffic calming on nearby local and collector streets more
challenging.
Recognizing the interest in, and need for, traffic calming on arterial streets that are residential in
nature, the City has already embarked on a multi-year project that will implement physical changes
to residential arterial roadways. The primary goal of the Residential Arterial Traffic Calming
Program is to reduce speeds on residential arterial streets while maintaining full arterial traffic
volumes and full access for all vehicles and other road users. This is a distinct program from the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program described here and is being implemented on a separate
track.
The City intends to apply the guidelines and procedures of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program in a flexible manner. This program should be viewed as a "living document" that will be
modified frequently as the City gains experience with the various aspects of the program, such as
the minimum qualifying criteria, ranking system, and/or procedures. Every effort has been made
to streamline this program, while still including the important elements of citizen participation and
Traffic Calming Program
Page 3 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
involvement of the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council in the most
important decisions.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 4 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
II.OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and neighborhood livability by reducing traffic
speeds, crashes, and cut-through traffic on local and collector streets, primarily through
engineering means.
Establish a defined formal procedure to implement traffic calming measures in an
efficient, fair, and timely manner-in response to residents concerns.
Provide an annual budget for "spot treatment" traffic calming projects (i.e. projects of
one or a few streets, with no noticeable traffic shift onto other residential streets).
Focus Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council involvement on the
major decisions required to implement traffic calming projects.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 5 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
_~_T_r_~ ffi c Problems~
Individual Local & Collector Streets
and Neighborhood-Wide
Figure 1: Types of Traffic/Transportation Issues
~AL.O AL’ro
L
ARTEI~IAL
~1 F_.Y~PIKF__$~WAY
F FI, F_..F_.WAY
FIGURE 2 [DRAFT]
Iii.GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are observed in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
1.Traffic not generated by or related to a specific neighborhood should be encouraged to use
arterial streets.
.2.A low ambient level of non-neighborhood traffic on local streets usually exists and is
virtually unavoidable (estimated at approximately 10-20 percent of total daily volume).
Preservation of emergency vehicle access will be maintained in traffic calming projects.
Reasonable automobile access to traffic calmed streets should be maintained. Pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit access should be encouraged and enhanced wherever possible. The
policy of the Comprehensive Plan is to keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a
demonstrated safety or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable
alternatives, or unless a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes.
Lanes may need to be narrowed at specific locations in order to accomplish traffic calming,
thus lessening the shared space available for bicyclists and drivers. The resulting vehicle
speeds and volumes will determine the extent to which bicyclists feel negatively affected.
Any localized impacts on bicyclists must be balanced with the overall benefit to bicyclists
and neighborhood residents of lower vehicle speeds and/or lower traffic volumes attained
through traffic calming.
Removal of parking spaces may be necessary in order to provide sufficient room to
install some traffic calming measures. Parking removal authorized by City staff will not
exceed 60 feet on side of a local street, within every 400-foot length of street (excluding
intersecting public or private streets or alleys). Parking loss at specific locations must be
balanced with a neighborhood’s desire to realize the benefits of the traffic calming
measures.
The traffic calming progr_am is limited to local and collector streets that are primarily
residential in nature. As defined in the Comprehensive Plan, local streets are designed to
provide access to adjacent properties only, while collector streets perform not only that
function, but also distribute traffic within an area to and from arterials. This program does
not apply to non-residential streets nor to any arterial street (refer to Figure 2).
Traffic Calming Program
Page 8 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
10.
11.
12.
Traffic calming measures on a local street will be designed to minimize the diversion of
traffic to another adjacent local street. However, some diversion may be unavoidable. An
increase of up to 25 percent of existing volume on an adjacent local street is considered to
be acceptable on most streets, as volume changes up to that magnitude are not perceived by
most residents. One exception is that the resulting total traffic volume on an adjacent local
street (existing volume plus the added volume diverted from the traffic calmed street) should
not exceed 2500 vpd.1
Traffic calming measures on a collector street will be designed to address primarily speed.
As noted above, collector streets are designed to serve some level of neighborhood-related
through traffic to/fi’om arterials. In some cases, diversion of traffic fi’om a local to a collector
sta’eet may be appropriate, depending in each specific case on the nature and amount of the
diverted traffic, up to an increase of 25 percent of existing volume.
In the hierarchy of city streets, arterials are the designated and desirable carriers of through
traffic and, as such, will often receive non-neighborhood through traffic diverted from local
and collector streets by neighborhood traffic calming measures.
The Transportation Division will evaluate and rank, using criteria described in this booklet,
requests for neighborhood studies or any other unusually expensive or complex traffic
calming projects. An annual list of these projects will be forwarded to the Planning and
Transportation Commission for recommendation and then to the City Council for adoption.
Such studies and major projects will be conducted and funded separately from the annual
budget for "spot" traffic calming projects affecting one or a few streets.
The procedures established for this program will ensure that requests for traffic calming
are treated fairly in that they must meet certain minimum criteria to be considered for
study, and will be prioritized according tO stated criteria: Exceptions to the normal
prioritizing procedure would be considered only as a consequence of (a) unanticipated
impacts of new development or redevelopment; (b) unanticipated impacts of changes in
the City’s street network; (c) unanticipated impacts of other traffic calming projects in
the City; or (d) appearance of unusual safety problems on a street or in a neighborhood.
In one or more of these instances, Transportation may forward a revised list of rankings
for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and approval of City
Council.
~The 25 percent increase is based on the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) index that shows
that, up to this point, most residents do not perceive the increase in volume. The TIRE index is a method of describing and
measuring residents’ perceptions of the effect of street traffic on residential activities such as walking, cycling, playing,
interacting with neighbors, and backing a car in and out of a driveway. The index was developed by neighborhood traffic
management researchers in the United States and England, and serves as a reference tool for judging the anticipated effect
of changes in traffic volumes. The City has employed this index in prior neighborhood studies, in evaluating traffic impacts
of land development projects, and in the Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive.Plan.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 9 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
13".
14.
The number of traffic calming projects may exceed the available level of funds and staff.
This may result in delays of from one to three years for consideration of some requests,
or the inability to address these requests.
If a trial traffic calming plan results in traffic diversion to adjacent streets that exceeds
the allowable 25 percent threshold, causes unacceptable delays to the emergency
services, or has other unintended results as determined by City staff, the trial will be
terminated, even if residents are in favor of the plan.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 10 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
IV. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Typical traffic calming measures are listed below and are illustrated and described in the
Appendix~ They are listed generally in order of increasing effectiveness in reducing traffic
volumes and/or speeds.
Warning and Specialty Signs
Stop Signs [technically not a traffic calming device but may be used in traffic calming plans]
Speed Limit Signs
Gateways
Textured Crosswalks
Special Striping, Narrow Lanes
On-Street Parking
Bulbouts, Chokers, Curb Extensions
Median Island Slow Points
Raised Intersections**
Traffic Circles
Serpehtine Streets, Chicanes*
Speed Tables and Raised Crosswalks**
Speed Humps*
Slow Streets*
Turn Prohibition Signs
Diagonal Diverters, Forced Turn Channelization, Median Barriers*
One-Way (Half) Street Closure*
Full Street Closure*
*Not permitted on collector streets unless an exception is granted by the Fire
Department and/or the Transportation Division. All speed hump projects will be
reviewed by the Fire Department before approval is given.
**Permitted on collector streets at intersections after Fire Department review. Speed
tables and raised crosswalks may be permitted on collector streets midblock if Fire
Department approves the specific location.
These measures can be used individually or in combination. Not all of them may be feasible or
acceptable in all locations. For example, street closures, though very effective at reducing non-
neighborhood traffic, are usually very controversial, disrupt the traditional neighborhood street grid,
can limit emergency vehicle access, and may shift too much traffic to adjacent local streets.
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33 discourages street closures except for certain situations, such as.
an overwhelming through traffic problem with no alternative measures available, and/or if closures
would increase the use of alternative transportation modes. Traffic calming options are much more
limited on collector streets, as collectors are the designated carriers of neighborhood traffic to and
from arterials, as well as part of the Fire Department’s primary emergency response network. Speed
humps, while very effective at reducing speeds without prohibiting access, have a substantial
Traffic Calming Program
Page 11 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
negative impact on fire and paramedic services. Therefore, they cannot be used on collector streets
unless the Fire Department and the Transportation Division grant an exception. More discussion on
the limitations imposed on the use of traffic calming measures is contained in the next chapter of
this program.
Some measures, such as bulb0uts and medians, could be installed inexpensively with painted
striping or raised pavement markers instead of constructing raised islands. This is not
recommended, because e~perience has shown that drivers often drive over painted stripes and
¯ markers, thus reducing the effectiveness of the device. Similarly, the use of signs is not as effective
as actual physical devices on the pavement because drivers may ignore the signs, and regular police
enforcement is usually required¯ Traffic calming can also be accomplished .to some degree by the
presence of on-street parking, which narrows the traveled way. Another effective, but expensive,
engineering method of reducing speed is the complete re-engineering of an entire street corridor in
order to create a narrower crossecfion, and/or to "close in" the street environment with extensive
landscaping, on-street parking, or other infrastructure.
The detailed procedures and minimum qualifying criteria by which residents can obtain traffic
calming measures are described in Chapters VI and VII later in this document.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 12 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
V. PROS AND CONS OF TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic calming projects have successfully reduced speeds and volumes in a variety of situations.
Most cities, including Palo Alto, have numerous traffic calming measures already employed, and
more are constantly being installed. Traffic calming programs are popular among residents, resulting
in a high demand for projects. Generally, the benefits of traffic calming are obvious and predictable,
while the disadvantages may not be quite so obvious. If not implemented correctly, traffic calming
measures could result in problems more significant than the original concern. The following
.discussion is provided so that residents can be fully informed before they request action, and so they
understand the issues that the City must consider in implementing a traffic calming project.
The Benefits o.fTra.ffic Calming Measures. Speeding is one of the primary complaints that the City
receives about traffic conditions on local streets. The most effective speed control measures are
those that force drivers into vertical or horizontal movement. These are speed humps, speed tables,
raised crosswalks and intersections, traffic circles, median slow points, and serpentine streets. These
measures generally reduce Vehicle speeds to 15 mph at the device, and to 25 - 30 mph along a
corridor of multiple devices, depending on their spacing. Reduced speeds result in lower noise
levels; reduced severity of crashes; improved neighborhood environment for bicycling, walking and
residential activities. Non-neighborhood traffic can be reduced by approximately 10 - 20 percent
by a series of speed reduction measures, and can be dramatically reduced (up to 100 percent) by
street closures and diverters. The benefits of reduced traffic volumes are similar to those of reduced
speeds. Reducing the level of non-neighborhood traffic may also reduce littering and crime. Many
measures provide opportunities for landscaping in formerly paved areas, thus contributing to
neighborhood aesthetics. There is some evidence that a well-designed traffic calming project can
increase neighborhood property values.
One of the most important impacts of traffic calming is the potential reduction in the severity and
number of crashes on traffic calmed streetsl Safety is enhanced through increased driver awareness
of other street users and through reductions in volumes, speeds and conflicts. In the United States,
reduction of crashes due to installation of traffic calming measures has been reported to be an
average overall of 50 percent. Traffic circles appear to offer the greatest reduction in collisions.
Speed reduction is especially important for pedestrian safety, as the severity of injury to a pedestrian
when hit by an automobile is dramatically reduced by lowering of vehicle speeds from 35 mph
(usually fatal) to fewer than 20 mph (usually just minor injuries). The value of such safety
enhancements can partially offset the negative impacts of some traffic calming measures on
emergency vehicle access.
Delays to Emergency Response Vehicles. Some traffic calming measures can cause substantial delay
to fire and paramedic vehicles and ambulances. These vehicles are particularly susceptible to the
vertical displacement of speed humps because of the weight and length of fire trucks, and the
delicate instruments and patients in paramedic vans and ambulances. Creating bumps, dips and
curves is precisely the result being sought in many traffic calming measures. While these maneuvers
will cause moderate discomfort and delay for normal passenger vehicles, including those used by
the Police Department, they cause a much greater problem for fire and paramedic vehicles. These
Traffic Calming Program
Page 13 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
vehicles must come to almost a complete stop before passing over a speed hump. Measures that
create horizontal displacement, such as traffic circles, serpentine streets, or median slow points, also
delay emergency vehicles, but less than humps. Traffic calming measures that are placed at
intersections, such as traffic circles, raised crosswalks, and raised intersections, are less of a problem
for the emergency services, because drivers of emergency vehicles must slow down at intersections
anyway. Delays caused by traffic calming measures must be considered by the emergency services
as they strive to meet the adopted mission goals of response times of four minutes or less for 90
percent of fire and basic medical calls, and six minutes or less for 90 percent of advanced medical
¯ (Paramedic) calls. For example, each speed hump creates a delay of up to ten seconds for a ladder
truck and up to five seconds for an ambulance. Speed humps are usually installed in sets of two to
three humps per block, so potential delay can accrue quickly in a multi-block speed hump project.
For the purpose of.this traffic calming program, the Fire Department has designated the City’s
network of expressways and arterial and collector streets as the primary fire response network
(illustrated in Figure 2). The Department may also designate certain local streets as routine
emergency routes, especially.if they are in the immediate vicinity of a fire station. Because .collector
streets are eligible for this traffic calming program, yet are part of the emergency response network,
traffic calming measures for collector streets must be specifically designed to have minimal impact
on emergency vehicle access times. The traffic calming measures designated with an asterisk (*) in
Chapter IV usually cannot be used on collector streets, in part, because of emergency vehicle
response impacts. The Fire Department emphasizes that all City streets, including local streets,
should be available for possible response routes in emergencies. On the other hand, the Department
understands that a reasonable number of traffic calming measures should be permitted on local
streets due to residents concerns about impacts of automobile traffic on their neighborhoods. It
should be expected, however, that the Fire Depwtrnent would resist most speed hump projects, and
instead advocate for other types of traffic calming measures. All requests for speed humps, whether
on local or collector streets, will be reviewed by the Fire Department before approval is given. Due
to impacts on the emergency services, speed hump installations will be limited to a maximum of 50
percent of the traffic calming capital budget for each fiscal year.
Traffic calming measures will typically reduce the severity of automobile crashes, thus reducing the
number of calls for service in the traffic calmed area. But the Fire Department also responds to fires,
medical emergencies, and domestic accidents that, collectively, represent the majority of calls on
local neighborhood streets. In the final analysis, there must be a balance between the speed of
emergency vehicle response versus the neighborhood quality of life improvements that result fi’om
traffic calming. The City and residents must keep this balance in mind in considering the
implementation of traffic calming measures.
Solving the Problem or Shifting the Problem? A traffic calming project must be carefully designed
and monitored to minimize shifting traffic from one neighborhood street to another. The drivers
most likely to change, routes are those who are not residents of the street on which the traffic
calming measures are installed. Any traffic calming device that effectively reduces speeds can be
expected to divert some portion of traffic to other routes (10 - 20 percent for a series of speed humps
and traffic circles), even though the street remains open. This is because, for most drivers, time is
Traffic Calming Program
Page 14 DRAFT
January 16; 2001
PATCP. 11
the primary factor in route choice. A 50 - 90 percent reduction in traffic volume can be obtained
with full and partial street closures, with that level of traffic moving to other streets and con’idors.
This high level of diverted traffic is difficult to control and can be a problem if it moves to adjacent
local neighborhood streets.
Ideally, drivers diverted by traffic calming measures should move to a nearby arterial route if it is
not too overcrowded. Other drivers who are closer to their origins or destinations might properly
shift to neighborhood collector streets. Sometimes drivers shift to other routes that are in entirely
different corridors from the original route. Unfortunately, not all diverted drivers will shift to a
"proper" route and may end up on another local residential street. The City endeavors to design
traffic calming installations that minimize this "shifting of the problem" to other local streets. A
good traffic calming design Will minimize the volume of diverted traffic, and/or control to which
streets the diverted traffic moves. This traffic calming program is based on a permissible shift of
traffic that amounts to an increase of up to 25 percent of the volume on the street to which the shift
,occurs. This increase is based on traffic research that shows that, up to this point, most residents do
not perceive the increase in volume (refer to Guideline 8). Traffic calming measures are effective
in reducing speeds in the immediate vicinity of the measures. In order to reducespeeds along a
corridor, an effective traffic calming project will usually require a series of measures. Drivers may
"make up" lost time by speeding up between widely spaced measures or after a series of measures.
Everyone ls Inconvenienced. Enforcemem and education efforts aimed at controlling speeds or
influencing driver behavior impact primarily the irresponsible drivers--usually a relatively small
percentage of the driving population. On the other hand, traffic calming measures create delay and
inconvenience for all drivers using the particular street.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 15 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP.11
Impacts on Parking and Other Road Users. Bicyclists, pedestrians and any other road users can
encounter problems with traffic calming measures. All measures are designed to be acceptably safe
for all users, assuming that these users are attentive as they proceed down the street. Speed humps
and traffic circles, for example, are two of the most popular traffic calming measures. Bicyclists can
traverse speed humps at typical cycling speeds without Slowing down. However, if a bicyclist is
careless (e.g., tiding with no hands, not watching the road, no lights at night, etc.), the cyclist might
unexpectedly encounter a hump and be caught offbalance. Where lanes are narrowed, bicyclists and
drivers usually must share the lane, possibly becoming a problem if traffic volumes are moderate
to high. Traffic circles force drivers to the right at intersections, toward (but not into) the
crosswalks, and pedestrians sometimes feel that their safety is being compromised. Residents who
are used to parking in front of their homes in the street may be impacted also, as some measures
require prohibition of on-street parking. These disadvantages for various user groups need to be
considered along with the recognized benefits of overall traffic speed and volume reduction in the
area that results from a traffic calming project.
Visual Concerns. While some traffic calming measures can be visually pleasing by introducing
landscaping into formerly paved areas, others can be unsightly. Since these measures are intended
to pose obstacles to drivers, they must be well signed, striped and reflectorized in order to avoid
safety problems and limit potential liability exposure for the City. For example, a traffic circle offers
the visual benefit of providing a large new area of landscaping in a former expanse of asphalt.
However, this visual benefit is partially offset by the addition of several new poles with highly
visible reflective signs. Speed humps offer only increased visual clutter, with highly visible traffic
signing, reflective markers and signs. Negative visual impacts are multiplied when a street with a
series of measures is viewed from one end of the traffic calmed area. This visual consideration
should be part of residents decision-making process in requesting traffic calming measures.
Costs. Most well-designed traffic calming measures are expensive. A project involving an entire
neighborhood can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Administration of the traffic calming
program and the design, installation, maintenance and enforcement of traffic calming measures
create recurring costs to the City. The annual cost of the "spot treatment" element of the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is $100,000, not including administration, enforcement,
maintenance, neighborhood studies, or unusually expensive traffic calming measures. Ultimately,
all these costs are borne by Palo Alto taxpayers.
The City has considered the general balance of the above pros and cons and, by its adoption of this
traffic calming program, concludes that the benefits of traffic calming outweigh the disadvantages.
This process must then be repeated by the City and residents for each specific traffic calming
project. The purpose of the guidelines and criteria that govern this program is to insure, to the
greatest degree possible, that traffic calming measures are used where there is a reasonably high
probability that the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 16 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
VI. PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
When a request for traffic calming is received, the Transportation Division first determines whether
the request could be handled through other simpler procedures described in the Introduction. For
example, a problem of drivers speeding around’ a sharp curve might be solved simply by installing
appropriate signs or striping at that specific location. The City will make every effort to mitigate the
identified problem(s) at this early stage without having to embark on an actual traffic calming
j~roject.
Many steps in this procedure will not be necessary for simple traffic calming projects--such as speed
humps. Once a traffic calming project has begun, the Transportation Division will determine which
steps in the procedure would apply to that project and will guide residents accordingly. If the City
determines that a project would be too large for the budget of this traffic calming program, or
would!should include an entire neighborhood, the project will be considered as a "complex project"
or "neighborhood project". Due to the usual high capital expense and staffing needs associated with
such projects, they will be ranked and placed on a separate project list to be evaluated according to
the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) procedure. When such projects are started, they will
usually be conducted following the same procedure as for other traffic calming projects, as follows.
Receive request and determine eligibility and ranking.
A request for traffic calming on one or a few streets must include a petition signed by 25
percent of the households on each block where action is requested. A household is defined
as any owned or rented living unit with its own street address, regardless of how many people
live in the unit. Each household is represented by one signature, regardless of the number of
people in the household. A request for traffic calming involving most or all of the streets in
a neighborhood must include a written request from the neighborhood association (if there
is one), as well as the above petition. The street(s) for which traffic calming is requested must
have at least 50 percent of the total street frontage developed in, or zoned or, single or
multiple family land uses.
A traffic calming request may pertain to problems of speeding, through traffic, or crashes on
local or collector streets. Upon receipt of a traffic calming request, the Transportation
Division collects the data required to determine if the minimum qualifying criteria described.
in Chapter VII are met. Qualified requests are then placed on the project list according to the
ranking criteria in Chapter VII. If the minimum criteria are not met and, if the problem can
be addressed through police enforcement or other means, the City will take the best corrective
action. Transportation staff will begin work on traffic calming projects according to the
project’s position in the project list and the staffing available. Other possible exceptions to
the standard criteria are discussed in Chapter VII.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 17 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
Determine project area and notify residents.
Once Transportation is ready to work on a traffic calming request, the staff first determines
the "primary street" segment(s) where traffic calming measures might be placed. Primary
street segments are usually bounded by collectors, arterials or other through streets.
Transportation also determines whether any cross streets or adjacent parallel streets might be
affected by traffic calming actions that might be taken on the primary street(s). This larger
area, consisting of the primary streets, cross streets and/or adjacent parallel streets, is termed
the "project area." A letter is then sent to all households within the project area to notify
residents that a project is beginning, to share the data gathered so far, and to ask if there are
other traffic issues that should be addressed. Transportation staff can add any new primary
streets or segments to the project, based on the feedback obtained from this outreach.
Hold first project area meeting.
Residents of the project area are notified of the first project area meeting, the purpose of
which is to introduce the project and to identify any other .traffic issues that should be
addressed. The impacts of Various traffic calming measures on the provision of emergency
services will be specifically discussed. Volunteers are solicited to form a working group that
will meet separately to begin development of one or more traffic calming plans to address
issues on the primary streets. If the traffic calming project is simple (e.g., involves only one
street), Transportation staff will develop one or more traffic calming plans for presentation
at this first meeting. For such simple cases, agreement on a traffic calming plan might be
reached at this meeting. Any potential plan involving the use of vertical traffic calming
measures (speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections) will take into
consideration the needs of any person living in the project area who has a disability as defined
in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2
Gatheradditional data and hold working group meetings.
Additional data, possibly including a license plate survey to determine the extent of non-
neighborhood through traffic, may need to be gathered at this point, depending on what other
2 A situationcould arise in which a person with a disability protected by the ADA would be denied ingress or
egress to the person’s place of residence because of the impact of driving over such a device. That person should be able to
reasonably demonstrate that the proposed measure would aggravate the protected disability. In that situation, any traffic
calming plan under consideration that included any of the above vertical measures would need to be modified to provide
an unobstructed route of ingress and egress to the person’s residence.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 18 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
issues were raised in the initial interest survey. One or more working group meetings are
convened to refine Transportation Division’s original plans and/or develop ideas for new
plans. The working group continues to meet until agreement is reached on a preferred plan
and one or more alternates.
Mail plans to residents and hold second project area meeting.
The preferred plan and alternate(s), including projected traffic data developed by
. Transportation staff, are mailed to project area residents along with announcement of a
meeting. Residents are asked to mail comments back to the City and/or attend the meeting:
The plans are presented to residents at the meeting. Transportation will attempt to include any
modifications desired by residents. It is desirable for project area residents to reach consensus
on the preferred plan by this point.
Conduct survey to determine if a trial should be implemented.
The Transportation Division prepares a survey for residents that describes the traffic, calming
measures proposed to be placed on the primary street(s) and asks if they would support
undertaking a four-month trial (six months for complex projects and neighborhood studies).
How the survey is conducted is determined by the type of traffic calming project. Because
some traffic calming projects will not fit neatly into the following categories, Transportation
might need to vary the survey procedure to best fit special cases.
(i)For spot treatment local street projects that do not include street closures, diverters,
or other measures that might substantially divert traffic to other streets, only those
households located on the primary street(s) will participate in the survey. If measures
are proposed for intersections (e.g., traffic circles), households on the intersecting
street up to one block in either direction will also be sui-veyed. One response is
allowed per household, regardless of the number of people in the household. Non-
resident property owners and households on other project area streets will not
participate in the survey at this time. In order for a trial to be considered for approval,
a simple majority (50+ percent) of all households on the primary street(s) (i.e., not
just of survey responses) must indicate support for the trial. If alternative plans are
included in the survey, the total support for all plans must be a simple majority, and
the altemative with the most support will be considered for a trial. Based on the
survey results, the City Manager will decide if a trial can proceed. The Transportation
Division prepares a study of potential project impacts. Neither Planning and
Transportation Commission nor City Council approval for a trial is required for these
projects, so the procedure skips to Step 8.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 19 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
(ii)For collector street projects, complex projects, projects including street closures or
diverters, and neighborhood studies, all project area households will be eligible to
participate in the survey (i.e., residents of the primary street(s) plus any adjacent
street(s) affected by traffic diversion). One response is allowed per household. Non-
resident property owners will not participate in the survey at this time. A simple
majority (50+ percent) of survey responses must indicate support for the trial. If
alternative plans are included in the survey, the total support for all plans must bea
simple majority, and the alternative with the most support will be recommended to
proceed to a trial. The recommendation of the Planning and Transportation
Commission and the approval of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment are required for the trial to proceed.
If the required resident support described above is not obtained, the procedure may either
¯ return to Step 4 (working group meeting) to select another alternative and repeat the above
procedure, or the process ends at this point.
Planning and Transportation Commission review and Director of Planning
and Community Environment approval to conduct a trial plan of collector
street projects, complex projects, projects including street closures or
diverters, and neighborhood studies.
The Transportation Division prepares a report to the Planning and Transportation
Commission in order to request its review of a trial of the traffic calming plan (including
selection of the preferred alternative for the trial, if necessary). The entire project area is
notified of the meeting. The Commission listens to public testimony and discusses the
proposed trial. The recommendations of the Commission are then forwarded to the Director
of Planning and Community Environment for final approval, If the trial is not approved, the
procedure may either return to Step 4 (working group meeting) to select another alternative
and repeat the above procedure, or the process will end at this point.
Design, implement and conduct approved trial.
The detailed plan for the trial is designed and bids are solicited for construction. The design
effort may need to be contracted out, in which case bids would also need to be solicited for
.the design work. Traffic data is gathered before the trial is implemented, .and at or near the
end of the trial. The typical trial period will be four months for spot treatment projects and
six months for complex projects and neighborhood studies.
Evaluate trial results and hold third project area meeting.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 20 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
At or near the end of the trial, City staff evaluates the results of the trial plan. Residents of
the entire project area are notified by mail of the trial results. An optional third project area
meeting may be held at which the results of the trial are discussed. At any point during a trial
or at the end, Transportation could detelxnine that the trial was clearly having substantial
unacceptable impacts and should be removed, as discussed in Chapter VIII.
10.Conduct survey of residents regarding results of trial.
11.
Transportation distributes a survey to determine if residents believe that the trial was
successful and if the project should be considered for permanent installation. The survey area
includes residents and property owners in the entire project area. In order for Transportation
to consider recommending to the Planning and Transportation Commission that the project
be approved for permanent installation, support must be indicated by a simple majority (50+
percent) of project area survey responses, including 50+ percent of all households on the
primary street(s).
Planning and Transportation Commission and/or City Council review of
results of trial plan and decision on permanent installation.
Transportation prepares a report to the Planning and Transportation Commission on the
outcome of the trial plan. If the trial was successful, City staff prepares an environmental
review based on the results of the trial. Residents and property owners of the project area are
notified. If the minimum project area support described in Step 10 is not obtained, or if the
plan was clearly not successful as described in Step 9, Transportation will recommend
removal of the trial traffic calming plan. Trials on local streets that do not involve street
closures or diverters can be recommended for permanent installation by the Planning and
Transportation Commission, with final approval by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment. Trials of all other projects require review by both the Commission and City
Council, with final approval resting with the City Council. In both cases, the Commission
and/or Council listens to public testimony, discusses the project, and recommends whether
the trial plan should be removed, modified, or made permanent. If the decision is made not
to approve a permanent installation of the traffic calming plan, the project ends at that point,
unless the Commission or Council directs that the process return to Step 4 to select another
alternative.
12.Design and implement permanent plan and conduct follow-up evaluation.
The pelxnanent installation is designed and bids are solicited for construction. The design
might also need to be contracted out, in which case bids would also need to be solicited for
the design work. Meetings with residents may be needed for designs of permanent measures.
City Council approval is required for consultant and construction contracts exceeding a
certain amount. A follow-up evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan may be conducted up
Traffic Calming Program
Page 21 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP.11
to three years after permanent installation. Congratulations! The project is now complete.
Time Line. Most spot treatment projects will require about ten months to reach approval for a trial
installation (Steps 1 - 6). The remainder of the process--designing, implementing and evaluating the
trial, and continuing through approval, design and installation of the final plan, will take
approximately an additional 10 - 14 months, for a total elapsed time of 20 - 24 months. Projects
consisting only of speed humps, with a staff-approved trial and no final design requirements, would
require only about 18 months. Complex/neighborhood projects would take at least twice as long as
the above time frame, due to the need to obtain City Council approval and funding, and the much
greater complexity of those projects.
The above time estimates assume that there are sufficient City funds and staffing to handle the
project workload. If there were a high citizen demand for projects, a project might be on the initial
project waiting list up to 24 months. If construction funds were insufficient in any given year, an
additional wait of 12 - 24 months might occur (one or two funding cycles) for construction of trial
and]or permanent traffic calming measures.
Resident Funding of Permanent Installation. If residents desired to speed up the final construction
process, the City would consider full (not partial) resident or property owner funding of a traffic
calming project. Project area or primary street residents and property owners determine how to
collect the money. Any number of residents and]or property owners can contribute (full funding
could even be provided by just a single resident), and residents are solely responsible for amassing
the required amount before presenting it to the City. A deposit of 50 percent of the estimated project
costs must be made to the City before the final design of the project can begin. Residents must
deposit the remaining 50 percent of the estimated project costs with the City before construction
begins. Resident funding will be received only for approved traffic calming projects, with the
purpose being to speed up permanent construction. Resident funding will not be used to speed up.
the qualification and study process or to qualify otherwise unqualified projects.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 22 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
VII.NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING REQUEST
MINIMUM QUALIFYING AND RANKING CRITERIA
Qualifying Criteria
Requests for traffic calming on residential local and collector streets may be made for one or more
candidate streets. Local and collector streets are illustrated in Figure 2. Requests involving one or
a few streets (i.e., for "spot treatment") must include a petition signed by 25 percent of the
.households, as described in Step 1 of Chapter VI. The street(s) for which traffic calming is requested
must have at least 50 percent of the total street frontage developed in, or zoned or, single or multiple
family land uses. In order for a request for spot treatment traffic calming projects to be eligible for
this program, at least two of the following five criteria must be satisfied:
(a) Minimum 85th percentile speed of 32 mph for local streets, and 3.5 mph for collector streets;3
(b) Minimum volume of 1,200 vehicles per day (vpd) for local streets and 4,000 vpd for collector
streets;4
(c) Location within 1,000 feet walking distance of a school, senior citizen facility, facility for the
disabled, park, community center, or other site with significant pedestrian activity;
(d) Evidence (survey or field evaluation) of significant cut-through (i.e., through or non-
neighborhood) traffic;
(e) Unusual accident history (as defined by six or more crashes, or one fatal crash, in the prior three
consecutive years - crashes due to parking, vehicle equipment, drug/alcohol, and certain other
causes clearly not solvable by traffic calming will usually not be counted.)
A request involving most.or all of the streets in a neighborhood must include a written request from
the neighborhood association (if there is one), as well as the above petition. For these complex/
neighborhood projects to be eligible for this program, each of at least two streets in the
neighborhood must meet at least two of the above five criteria, 6r each of at least three streets must
meet either the volume or speed criterion.
Ranking Criteria
Requests that meet the minimum qualifying criteria are placed on a project list according to the
following ranking scheme. A separate list will be maintained for spot treatment projects and
complex/neighborhood projects. Due to funding and staffing concerns, the Transportation Division
will place complex/neighborhood projects on a separate project list to,be forwarded annually to the
Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council for special funding, staffing, and
3 Speed measurements will be multiplied by_+5 percent to allow for measurement error and random daily variability. If
any point in the resulting speed range meets or exceeds the above minimum, this criterion will be satisfied.
4 Volume measurements will be multiplied by_+10 percent to allow for measurement error and random daily variability.
If any point in the resulting volume range meets or exceeds the above minimum, this criterion will be satisfied.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 23 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
authorization to proceed.
¢" Speed at, or up to 10% above, the minimum speed criterion--one street: ¯
¢" Speed at, or up to 10% above, theminimum speed criterion--two+ streets:
¯ /" Speed more than 10% above the minimum speed criterion--one street:
,," Speed more than 10% above the minimum speed criterion --two+ streets:
¢" Volume at, or up to 20% above, the minimum volume criterion--one street:
¢" Volume at, or up to 20% above, the minimum volume criterion--two+ streets:
,/" Volume more than 20% above, the minimum volume criterion--one street:
" Volume more than 20% above, the minimum volume criterion--two+ streets:
,/" Within 1000 feet walking distance of a school, senior citizen facility, facility
for the disabled, park, community center, or other site with significant
pedestrian activity---one site:
,/" Within 1,000 feet walking distance of a school, senior citizen facility, facility
for the disabled, park, community center, or other site with significant
pedestrian activity--two+ sites:
,/"Evidence of significant cut-through traffic--one street:
¢"Evidence of significant cut’through traffic--two+ streets:
¢"Request supported by more than 50% of households on problem street(s):
3.0 points
6.0 points
4.0 points
8.0 points
1.5 points
3.0 points
2.0 points
4.0 points
2.5 points
5.0 points
1.0 points
2.0 points
2.0 points
Traffic Calming Program
Page 24 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
VIII. REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Traffic calming measures may be subject to removal at the trial or permanent stages for various
reasons, including conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), impacts on the
emergency services, safety problems, unacceptable traffic impacts, or by request of affected
residents.
Conformity with ADA. Traffic calming measures that force vertical movements for drivers
(speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, and raised intersections) could have a harmful
effect on persons with certain disabilities, under certain circumstances. A person with a disability
protected by the ADA might move residence to a street where one of these measures has
previously been installed or is in a trial stage, and where there is no route of ingress and egress
for the new resident that does not require travel over one of these measures. If that person
requests removal of one or more of these measures because that person reasonably demonstrates
that the measure aggravates the protected disability, the request will be evaluated and granted by
the Chief Transportation Official (CTO). As part of that decision, the CTO would determine if
removal of the device would negatively impact the overall traffic calming plan. If a potential
negative impact were expected, the CTO would direct that’a monitoring program be conducted
to determine the impact of the change. If a negative impact were found, the CTO would direct
that a project be initiated, generally following the procedures in Chapter VI, to evaluate a
modification of the traffic calming installation. The goal would be to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the device removal.
Impacts on the Emergency Services. During City consideration Of any potential trial or
permanent installation of traffic calming measures, the Fire Department. will evaluate impacts on
its mission with regard to delay in providing fire and paramedic services. The Fire Department is
particularly concerned with speed humps and other vertical measures on local and collector
streets. A traffic calming plan that is expected to create unacceptable delay for the Fire
Department would not be implemented. If a trial traffic calming plan were implemented and
then found to introduce unacceptable delays in emergency response, the trial would be adjusted
accordingly, or even be removed. After the traffic calming plan has been tested, evaluated,
approved, and permanently installed, it is unlikely that the Fire Department would later find that
the plan is causing unacceptable delay impacts. If, for that reason, the Fire Department requests
modification or removal of a permanent traffic calming plan, Transportation will take the request
to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council for a recommendation or
decision, whether or not the original installation was approved by those bodies. If modification
of the plan were directed, Transportation would follow the same procedure in Chapter VI under
which the plan had been originally installed.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 25 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
Unacceptable Impacts. At any time during a trial period or at the end, if Transportation determines
that the trial is clearly having substantial unacceptable impacts (e.g., traffic diversion substantially
exceeds the 25 percent threshold, substantial resident complaints, crashes, substantial delays to the
emergency services), the procedure would return to Step 4 (working group meeting) to make
modifications and repeat the trial. If it appeared that modifications could not be developed that
would resolve the problem(s), the Chief Transportation Official would direct that a staff-approved
trial be abandoned and the project would end at that point, even if residents were in favor of the
trial. If commencement of the trial required review by the Planning and Transportation Commission,
City staff would prepare a report to the Commission recommending that the trial be abandoned. If
problems were serious enough, Transportation could end the trial and remove the trial measures
without notice, even if residents were in favor of the trial.
Residents’ Request. Once a traffic calming plan has been developed, successfully tested in a trial
installation (and changes made if necessary), and permanent measures designed and installed, it
is unlikely that anyone would request removal of the installationl This has not occurred with any
traffic calming projects in Palo Alto. However, there could be circumstances under which
residents would desire such a removal. City staff would handle such a request on an ad-hoc
basis, following the same procedure in Chapter VI under which the traffic calming plan had
originally been installed. Usually, only residents from the project area, as defined in Step 2 of
Chapter VI would be eligible to make the request. The same percentage of project area
households that is required to vote for installation of a plan would be required for its removal. A
request for removal would be taken to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City
Council for discussion and action, whether or not those bodies approved the original installation.
Traffic Calming Program
Page 26 DRAFT
January 16, 2001
PATCP. 11
DraftAppe ai
INVENTORY OF NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC CALMING M-EASURES
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Transportation Division
January 16, 2001
Inventory of Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Measures
For Local and Collector Streets
Table of Contents
Introduction
Description. and Illustrations of Traffic Calming Measures
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Warning and Specialty Signs
Stop Signs [technically not a traffic calming device but may be used in traffic calming plans]
Speed Limit. Signs. :
Gateways
Textured Crosswalks
Special Striping, Narrow Lanes
On-Street Parking
Bulbouts, Chokers, Curb Extensions
Median Island Slow Points
Raised Intersections**
Traffic Circles
Serpentine Streets, Chicanes*
Speed Tables and Raised Crosswalks**
Speed Humps*
Slow Streets*
Turn Prohibition Signs
Diagonal Diverters, Forced Turn Channelization, Median Barriers*
One-Way (Half) Street Closure*
Full Street Closure*
*Not permitted on collector streets unless an exception is granted by the Fire Department and/or the
Transportation Division. All speed hump projects will be reviewed by the Fire Department before approval is
given.
**Permitted on collector streets at intersections after general Fire Department review. Speed tables and raised
crosswalks may be permitted on collector streets midblock if Fire Department approves the specific location.
III. Directory of Traffic Calming Web Sites
Inventory of Local and Collector Street
Traffic Calming Measures
I.Introduction
In Palo Alto, traffic calming is defined as the combination of mainly physical measures that
reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, improve safety for non-
motorized street users, and improve neighborhood livability. This traffic calming program does
not include the educational and enforcement programs that are provided by the Police
Department and the Transportation Division. Many residents feel that education and enforcement
do not have a permanent impact on driver behavior; thus, this traffic calming program is focused
on physical measures that should cause noticeable, lasting changes in driver behavior.
The following pages describe and illustrate traffic calming measures that may be used on local
and collector streets in Palo Alto. For a variety of reasons, not all measures may be acceptable or
desirable in all situations. Some measures are not acceptable for use on collector streets or on
certain local streets determined by the Fire Department to be important emergency response
routes. The determination, of which measures best suit which application will be worked out
between neighborhood residents, the Transportation Division and Fire Department, following the
guidelines and qualifying criteria described in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
document. Many of the measures described herein may beused in combination with each other,
and there are also many design variations of each measure. Residents are encouraged to see and
experience traffic calming measures that are installed in Palo Alto and nearby communities--
some locations are included in the description of each measure. The Transportation Division has
an extensive library of traffic calming books and photographs that residents can peruse.
Additionally, the World Wide Web sites listed at the end of this inventory provide extensive
additional information and illustrations.
The traffic calming measures in this inventory are listed generally in order of increasing
effectiveness at reducing the volume Of shortcutting traffic and/or speeds. The least effective
measures are usually "passive," meaning that drivers can choose whether or not to obey them.
The most typical examples of passive measures are traffic signs and striping. The next level is
the "active" measures that physically constrain the driver to certain paths or areas in the
roadway. The most desirable and effective active measures are those that force drivers into
horizontal or vertical movement, therefore causing drivers to reduce speed--theprimary objective
of traffic calming. Reduced speed translates into increased travel time that, in turn, may decrease
traffic volumes because drivers may abandon a slower route. Some examples of these measures
are traffic circles and speed humps. The most drastic active measures are those that partially or
completely block traffic movements, with dramatic effects on traffic volume and the incidence of
speeding. Partial and full street closures are examples of this type of measure.
For further information, please contact the City of Palo Alto Transportation Division at
(650) 329-2552.
1. WARNING AND SPECIALTY SIGNS
1. WARNING AND SPECIALTY SIGNS
Warning signs are standard signs prescribed by the State to warn of specific obstacles and conditions,
such as curves, bumps, driveways, pedestrian crossings, advisory speed, etc. Usually such a sign would be
installed only because of the existence of the particular condition. Many traffic calming devices require
installation of warning signs to warn drivers.of the impediment. Warning signs by themselves are usually
not considered to be traffic calming devices.
Other warning signs are non-standard in that they are not recognized by the State. Some can be termed
"specialty" signs, and may carry messages such as "Residential Street", "Children Playing", or novel
messages such as odd speed limitsand other non-standard messages. Some non-standard signs may be
necessary to warn drivers of unusual traffic calming devices. Novel messages may catch the driver’s eye a
few times, but after a while novelty wears off. In general, the messages of all these signs can wear off
quickly on regular drivers on a particular route, whether they are local residents or shortcutting drivers.
Palo Alto discourages non-standard signs except where they must be used to warn of an unusual device.
Some specialty signs warn of conditions that most drivers should presume to exist in every neighborhood
and/or are inherently obvious. Examples are the two given above. If such signs were used extensively, but
not everywhere, drivers could come to think that their absence indicates that those conditions are not
present when they might actually be present. In general, specialty or novel signs can be considered to be
traffic calming devices, but their long-term impact is minimal in all respects. Each sign installation costs
approximately $150.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
2. STOP SIGNS
Berkeley
Seattle
2. STOP SIGNS
A stop sign is not considered to be a traffic calming device, but is included here because stop signs could be
included in a traffic calming plan under certain circumstances and because many residents request
installations of stop signs for traffic calming purposes. The purpose of a stop sign is to assign right-of-way
at intersections with significant traffic volumes or safety problems. Official warrants describe the
conditions under which stop signs should be installed. Because it assigns right-of-way, th’e stop sign is the
most important regulatory sign in traffic engineering. If drivers disregard it, severe consequences for
drivers can result. In order to maintain driver respect for the stop sign and to not dilute its importance, it
must not be used inappropriately or too frequently. Nevertheless, stop signs have been installed for
neighborhood traffic calming purposes, often at the insistence of residents and often without the :
recommendation of the City traffic engineer. Ironically, a common resident complaint is drivers running
stop signs. Stop signs are appropriate in traffic calming projects at some locations where accidents occur
due to unresolvable visibility or right-of-way problems. The best example of stop signs used primarily for
traffic calming purposes is Palo Alto’s "guard and go" stop sign system that was implemented Citywide in
1961.
Traffic
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
i Response
Aesthetics
Isolated stop signs are not effective at reducing volumes. If a series of stop signs is
installed, and if there is an alternative and faster collector or arterial route, the volume
of non-neig~hborhood traffic can be reduced.
¯ Palo Alto’s 1976 stop sign study showed that, with stop signs installed every other
block, 85th percentile speeds ranged from 23-37 mph between stop signs, with speeds
at or less than the 25 mph residential speed limit at only 3 out of 60 locations. The
conclusion of the study was that speeds with the guard and go system were as fast as,
or faster, than they would be without it.
¯ If stop signs were installed at every block, mid-block speeds might be reduced further
than noted above, but widespread disobedience of stop signs would be expected. Even
with stop signs every other block, thestop sign study found that over 70 percent of
traffic does not come to a full stop at intersections, with speeds through the intersection
ranging from 2.5 to 10 mph.
¯ Speeds are reduced within about 200 feet of the intersection at which they are
installed.
Stop signs increase emissions, fuel consumption and noise.
As noted in the stop sign study, safety is compromised by too many stop signs, because
of the disobedience caused by having to stop frequently for no apparent reason.
Minimal impact on emergency response.
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other Generally unpopular with bicyclists, because a series of complete stops can
substantially lower average speed.
As with any traffic sign, aesthetics is usually degraded. A single sign has minimal
negative visual impact. Pavement legends (stop bar and stop legend) contribute to the
negative visual impact.
Maintenance for a single sign and stop bar is relatively small, but compounds for a
series of signs.
$200 for new sign and legend installation.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May lO,2000
3. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS
3. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS
--~11 residential local and collector streets in Palo Alto have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph, which is
typically not posted:on local streets. Residents often request the posting of speed limit signs for traffic
calming purposes~ Usually this request is denied, as most drivers know that the residential speed limit is 25
mph. Furthermore, if signs were posted on some local streets but not others, drivers could think that only
the posted streets had the 25 mph limit. 25 mph speed limit signs might be posted on major collector streets
if the physical characteristics of the street communicate to drivers that a higher speed would be acceptable. "
In general for all types of signs, their passive nature and the fact that regular drivers of a route may
eventually not consciously notice them, the result is typically insignificant impact on driver behavior.
Traffic ..No impact.
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Studies and field observations in Palo Alto and other cities show that drivers’ speeds
include relatively little consideration for the posted speed limit. Absent sustained
police enforcement, drivers tend to travel at a speed at which they feel is comfortable
for the circumstances. However, this may not be the speed that residents of the street
feel is comfortable and safe while they are engaging in "residential activities" not in
their vehicles. Usually more active devices than signs are needed to encourage or
force drivers to slow down.
Minimal impact.
Minimal impact on traffic safety. No impact on emergency services.
Incremental negative aesthetic impact from each additional sign.
Incremental increase in maintenance for a single sign.
$150 per new sign installation.
Appendix: Inventory of Ne.ighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
4. GATEWAYS
Gateway
University Drive, Menlo Park
Gateway
Ninth Avenue, Fair Oaks
4. GATEWAYS
A gateway consists of an architectural or roadway feature on each side and/or in the center of a roadway,
used primarily to indicate to drivers that they are entering a special area, usually a residential neighborhood
in the case of traffic calming. The most effective gateways include vertical elements such as trees or
columns. Gateways may be formed by curb bulbouts, fences, poles, signs, artwork, and other features
which can be combined with each other. If the gateway were narrow, it would reduce speed at that point
and could reduce through traffic. Local examples: Fair Oaks neighborhood near Atherton; entrance to
Lindenwood neighborhood, Atherton; Cambridge west of El Camino Real, and University south of Middle
in Menlo Park.
Traffic
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
’Reduction intraffic volume would normally be small because gateways do not occur in
a series, nor do they typically reduce speeds. The narrower the gateway, the greater the
opportunity for some volume reduction.
If a gateway is substantially narrower than the normal roadway width, some speed
reduction is possible at.the gateway only. Refer also to above comments about volume
reduction.
Typically there would be minimal impacts on noise production, air quality or energy
consumption. If the gateway were particularly narrow, especially if two-way traffic
could proceed in only one direction at a time, some increased noise could result from
braking and acceleration in the gateway area.
Accident data is generally inconclusive. There is some evidence indicating that
accidents may be reduced with gateway treatments, even extremely narrow ones.
Minimal impact on the emergency services.
Normally, gateways add to the aesthetic appeal of the area, due to the architectural
features or landscaping. Special signing that would reduce aesthetic appeal is usually
not required unless the width of roadway is reduced to a one-way crossection.
All traffic calming devices require maintenance. Gateways usually do not create
interference with roadway surface work. For landscaped gateways, refer to
maintenance descriptions for landscaped devices.
There is a wide range of costs for gateways depending on their design. A simple
wooden fence such as used in the Fair Oaks area could be constructed for
approximately $1000. Designs involving curb bulbouts would cost from $20,000 to
$40,000, High-quality designs involving architectural features such as columns and
portals could cost around $100,000.
Appendix." Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
5. TEXTURED CROSSWALKS
Textured Crosswalks
Downtown Menlo Park
5. TEXTURED CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks, whether midblock or at intersections, can be textured by means of special pavers or other
treatment. When used as part of a larger traffic calming project, the primary intention is to impart a
message to the driver that the area being traversed has some special identity, such as an area where
pedestrian traffic is frequent, and/or that special driving attention is required. A textured crosswalk can be
used in isolation, usually for the specific purpose of calling greater driver attention to the specific
crosswalk. Local examples: University Avenue between Cowper and High (Palo Alto), Downtown
Redwood City and Menlo Park (none are neighborhood calming projects).
Traffic
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response,
Aesthetics
No change in traffic volume would normally be expected.
Only minor reduction in speeds would be expected, if any.
Depending on the type of textured treatment, some amount of increased noise is likely.
No impact on air quality and energy consumption.
No data is available on traffic safety impacts. No impacts on emergency response
vehicles.
Special pavement treatments add to aesthetic appeal of a street or intersection:
Additional signing is not required for the sole purpose of converting typical asphalt to
special paving.
Maintenance Increased maintenance, possibly including stockpiling of special materials, is required
for special pavement treatments. Removal and replacement may be required for street
resurfacing.
Approximate $10,000
Cost
Other By themselves, textured crosswalks are not particularly effective traffic calming
devices. They are best used in conjunction with other traffic calming measures, such as
bulbouts, raised crosswalks and raised intersections. Another method of calling
attention to a crosswalk is the use of lights installed in the pavement that are activated
when a pedestrian wishes to cross. However, such a device is usually used as a specific
crosswalk safety device rather than for the broader purpose of traffic calming.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
6. SPECIAL STRIPING AND NARROW LANES
Narrow Lane
Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto
6. SPECIAL STRIPING/NARROW LANES
Some geometric design features employing islands and circles to calm traffic can be installed with traffic
striping and/or pavement markers to form the island or circle. Such installations are relatively inexpensive,
low-maintenance, and do not interfere with drainage and street sweeping. However, because they can be
driven over, and because they produce no visual obstruction when seen from a distance, they have
relatively small impact on driver speeds and volumes. In this regard, use of striping to achieve traffic
calming can be considered a "passive" measure, like installing signs, because drivers are not physically
forced to change their behavior. Regular Police Department enforcement is usually required to produce
effective results from such passive devices.
Traffic lanes may be narrowed merely by changing the striping layout to reduce, for example, 12-foot lanes
to 10-foot lanes. If appropriate, bicycle lanes can be added to a street, with consequent reductions in width
of the other lanes. Narrower lanes may give drivers the impression of a narrower street and/or less room for
maneuvering, thereby potentially reducing speeds. The lack of physical width restrictions (such as raised
islands, landscaping, parked cars) results in substantially less impact on driver behavior than the other
physical measures.
Traffic r~
Volume:
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
A narrow lane on some major arterial streets in Palo Alto does not appear to have
reduced traffic volumes noticeably. Minimal impact expected from devices created by
striping only.
A narrow lane on some major arterial streets in Palo Alto does not appear to have
reduced traffic speeds noticeably. Minimal impact expected from devices created by
striping’only.
Minimal impacts would be expected.
Minimal impacts would be expected.
No impact on aesthetics if the amount of striping remains the same. If new striping
were added, the impact on aesthetics would be moderately negative.
Maintenance Any additional striping requires increased maintenance for striping. Street resurfacing
becomes more costly with increased replacement striping.
Approximate Cost depends on the length of striping removed and installed and varies depending on
Cost the overall size of the project. Removal and replacement of thermoplastic striping costs
approximately $1.00 per linear foot.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
7. ON-STREET PARKING
Palo Alto
Seattle
7. ON STREET PARKING
Reduction in width of traffic lanes, especially when physical objects are brought closer to the outside edge
of the traffic lane, can reduce driver speeds, as drivers perceive that there is less width for maneuvering and
sight distance is reduced. Parked cars are especially conducive in this regard, as they indicate numerous
hazards, such as the possible presence of pedestrians, car doors opening, cars pulling out, children
appearing suddenly from between cars, and the "wall effect" causing drivers to feel that the lane is
narrower than it really is. A row of parked cars also provides a buffer between pedestrians on the sidewalk
and moving vehicles. Adding on-street parking is usually only possible if the demand is already present and
parking has heretofore been prohibited. On-street parking areas can be created on alternating sides of the
street, with traffic lanes shifting back and forth tO accommodate the parking areas (refer to description of
"serpentine street"). If sufficient width is available, diagonal parking can be introduced; producing a
different "feel" to the neighborhood.
Traffic
Volume "
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
No data specific to this measure is available.
No data specific to this measure is available.
Minimal impacts would be expected.
Minimal negative impacts on driver safety would be expected. In some cases of very
narrow lanes, drivers may become more conscious of opposing traffic and, in
combination with reduced speeds, safety may increase. Heavy on street parking,
however, introduces safety problems for cyclists: narrower lanes may not allow a
cyclist and a driver to share the lane, and the increased probability that a driver will
open a door into the path of a passing cyclist. Minimal impacts on emergency services,
unless the combination of high traffic volume and narrow lane widths is such that
emergency vehicles cannot find enough room to pass waiting cars.
Heavy on-street parking, to most observers, has negative aesthetic impacts, such as
increased number of signs, reflections from metal and glass, blocking views Of
landscaping, damaging trees, and increased noise and litter.
Increased maintenance is required for any signs and striping used to control on-street
parking, and special signs and programs must be introduced if street sweeping is to be
conducted without parking present.
Depends on how it is instituted. Typically, the primary cOSt would be for new signs at
approximately $150 each.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
8. BULBOUTS, CHOKERS, AND CURB EXTENSIONS
Bulbout
Park Blvd/Lambert
Curb Extension with drainage
and landscaping -
Milvia Street, Berkeley
Bulbout
Park Bivd/Lambert
Bulbout
Park Blvd between
Grant & Sheridan
Bulbout not attached to curb - Willow Road, Menlo Park
8. BULBOUTS, CHOKERS, CURB EXTENSIONS
Bulbouts, bumpouts, curb bulbs, chokers, curb extensions and neckdowns are synonymous terms for an
extension of the curb into the former paved street area, typically for th~ width of a parallel parking space.
The low-cost (budget) design does not literally extend the curb line; rather a gap remains between the
former curb line and the new islands, in order to maintain gutter flow. Bulbouts may be installed at
intersections or midblock, on one or both sides of the street. They usually do not impede or redirect traffic
flow; rather, they typically reduce the width of the traveled way to the minimum required for two-way
traffic (in Palo Alto, they will not be used to narrow the street to less than the minimum of 20 feet required
for two-way traffic, unless .used ,only for one-way traffic). They .may .be used for numerous purposes,
including (i) reducing curb radii at intersections to slow turning traffic, (ii) enhance pedestrian safety and
visibility at pedestrian crossings, (iii) provide extra space for landscaping and sidewalk amenities; (iv)
possibly reduce driver speed by creating a sense of narrowness, (v) create a neighborhood gateway feature.
For bulbouts used on one side of the street in conjunction with offset centerlines, refer to discussion for
serpentine streets and chicanes. Bulbouts may be short (e.g. about one car length), and could be much
longer (e.g., a large portion of a city block). Examples of intersection bulbouts: University Avenue
(Downtown Palo Alto); Santa Cruz Avenue (Downtown Menlo Park). Examples of longer bulbouts: Park
Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Lambert Avehue (Palo Alto). None of the above examples are
neighborhood traffic calming projects.
Traffic Studies have shown that bulbouts reduce traffic volumes only if they narrow the street
Volume to less than two lanes with two-way traffic, or are installed frequently along a
considerable length of street. Thus, in most installations, bulbouts are not considered to
be a serious volume reduction measure.
Speed The effect on speeds is similar to the above discussion on volumes. In most
installations, bulbouts are not considered to be a serious speed reduction measure,
except for turning traffic when bulbouts are used to shorten corner radii at
intersections.
No substantial effects have been identified.Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
When used at intersections and other pedestrian crossings, pedestrian safety and
visibility is enhanced by bringing waiting pedestrians out closer to the traffic lane, and
shortening the crossing distance. On higher-volume streets, bicyclists may be
adversely affected when they are forced to share the narrow travel lane with drivers.
Providing bicycle lanes through the bulbouts essentially defeats the primary purpose of
bulbouts, which is to substantially narrow the traveled way. Bulbouts do not noticeably
interfere with movement of emergency vehicles, provided that the minimum turn radii
are proyided at intersections.
Bulbouts may be landscaped, adding greenery where asphalt was formerly present.
Required signs and reflective devices may be unattractive.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. Automatic irrigation decreases the
need for landscaping maintenance and watering. Depending on the design, bulbouts
may interfere with street sweeping and gutters may clog.
Budget design (not attached to curbs): $19,000 per pair. High aesthetic/low
maintenance design (attached to curb): $40,000 per pair (higher or lower depending on
new storm drainage construction). The above estimates are for short bulbouts as might
be used at intersections. Longer bulbouts would cost proportionately more.
Parking spaces will be eliminated in bulbout locations, but may be less at intersections
where parking may already be prohibited. At intersection, minimum corner radii
requirements for small trucks and emergency vehicles may reduce the potential for
shortening pedestrian crossing distance.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
9. MEDIAN ISLAND SLOW POINTS
Portland, Oregon
9. MEDIAN ISLAND SLOW POINTS
Raised islands can be installed along the centerline of a street, narrowing the street and lane widths, either
at intersections or midblock. Traffic lanes wilt be offset towards the curbs. The resulting narrowing and
moderate horizontal deflection can Iower speeds in the vicinity of the median. Because horizontal
deflection is usually not extreme, speed reduction is not large. Therefore, these devices do not substantially
reduce traffic volumes: The mild horizontal deflection does not seriously slow down emergency vehicles.
Thus, this measure maY be used on collector streets. Curb bulbouts could be used in conjunction with
median islands to create a greater feeling of constriction, thus reducing speeds more. The median islands
can be used in conjunction with crosswalks, with the median serving as a pedestrian refuge. Another
variation is the angled slow point, where the.median island and:corresponding bulbouts are angled to
produce greater horizontal deflection, thus greater speed reduction.
Traffic volumes may be reduced by about ten percentif a series of slow points is
installed.
Traffic
Volume
Speed Speeds may be reduced by about five percent, depending on the "before" speed and the
severity of the horizontal offset.
Minimal changes in noise, air quality and energy consumption.Noise, Air
Quality, ¯
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
When used as pedestrian refuges, median slow points improve pedestrian safety by
slowing traffic and breaking the crossing into two segments. If the medians are’used on
higher volume streets that are also bicycle routes (e.g. exceeding about 4000 vpd),
bicyclists may be adversely affected when they have to share the travel lane with
vehicles around the circle. With a series of circles, bicyclists may benefit fi’om overall
speed and volume reductions. Bike lanes could be maintained through the slow point,
but the added width offsets the effectiveness of the narrowing in slowing down
vehicles. Median slow points may be used on emergency response routes. The angled
slow point cannot be used on emergency response routes because of the more severe
narrowing and horizontal deflection.
Median islands may be landscaped, adding greenery where asphalt was formerly
present. From a distance, trees may lead drivers to believe that the street is somehow
obstructed, and therefore may help reduce volumes. New signs are required, adding
visual clutter.
Each traffic calming device requires maintenance. Automatic irrigation decreases the
need for landscaping maintenance and watering. Because medians are located in the
center of streets, drainage and street sweeping are not affected.
The standard minimum-width median design includes landscaping and automatic
irrigation, at about $25,000 for a 40-foot length. A hardscape design would cost about
$20,000. Longer medians would cost proportionately more.
Medians used at intersections must be designed to allow for turns by large vehicles,
possibly affecting the location and effectiveness of the medians. Parking will probably
have to be prohibited in the vicinity of the medians.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
10. RAISED INTERSECTIONS
I
Raised Intersection
Andronico’s Market - Quarry Road, Paio Alto
10. RAISED INTERSECTIONS
A raised intersection is somewhat analogous to a midblock speed table as a speed reduction technique. The
entire intersection is raised from three to six inches above grade, and may be given a special pavement
treatment. This technique has been used extensively in Europe. In the U.S., they have more often been
used as enhancements for pedestrian safety and aesthetics in shopping areas, rather than for neighborhood
traffic management. Local examples: Main entrance to Andronico’s Market (Stanford Shopping Center);
Central Park Area (Stanford West Apartments).
Traffic
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality, ~
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
No data is available, but the volume reduction should be less than for speed humps and
tabl~s,.due to ~the greater length of.the plateau in the direction of travel. :
Minimal available data indicates minimal overall speed reduction, except at the raised
intersection itself.
Noise can increase due to braking, acceleration, crossing textured pavement, and
bouncing cargo in trucks. Minimal impact on air quality and energy consumption.
Pedestrians benefit at raised intersections because the street is raised to the same grade
.as pedestrians, making the area pedestrian territory and encouraging drivers to take
extra care. Due to the long raised plateau of raised intersections, and their location at
intersections, this measure is acceptable for use on collector streets. Fire trucks and
paramedic vans will have to slow to cross the raised intersection, but they usually slow
anyway at intersections.
Potential for improved aesthetics if special pavement treatment is used. Warning signs
may be required, which would degrade aesthetics.
Additional maintenance is required, especially for special pavement treatments. Raised
intersection interferes with street overlays, and may have to be removed for a
resurfacing project.
Actual data is not available. A rough estimate is $30,000 - $60,000 for asphalt
construction, including drainage work; and $40,000 - $70,000 for concrete/paver
construction, including drainage work. Over half of the above costs represents drainage
work.
Appendix." Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
11. TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Traffic Circle
Lytton/Fulton, Palo Alto
Traffic Circle
Park Ave/Park Bivd
Traffic Circle
Park Ave/Park Blvd
11. TRAFFIC CIRCLES
As used for traffic calming purposes, traffic circles are relatively small circular or oval islands. (usually
landscaped) placed at the center of intersections of local and/or collector streets. Their primary purpose is
to reduce speeds through an intersection or, if used in a series, reduce speeds for several blocks. Depending
on their design, traffic circles can also reduce conflicts at intersections. Because they are located in the
middle of two streets, they may give drivers on both streets the impression that the streets may not be
"through". They can be used with and without stop signs. Traffic circles are different from "roundabouts",
the latter being a more formalized version of a circle which are usually installed on higher-volume streets
Though roundabouts reduce speeds through an intersection, their primary purpose is to facilitate traffic
flow rather .than discourage it. ~Local examples: Addison/B_ryant, Lytton/Fulton, and Park Blvd/Park Ave
intersections (Palo Alto); Fair Oaks Neighborhood (near Atherton).
Traffic Reduced speeds and the appearance of obstructions in the roadway will reduce
Volume volumes by about 20% for a series of circles; minimal reduction for a single circle.
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
Reduced about 100-200 feet before and after the circle, compared to no previous traffic
controls at intersection. Reduced to about 15 mph at the circle. A series of circles at
several intersections will reduce speeds between intersections to 25-30 mph, depending
on spacing.
If a circle replaces stop signs, noise, fuel consumptionand emissions will decrease. A
series of circles, by reducing overall speeds, will have the same effects over a length of
street.
Intersection accidents can be decreased where circles completely replace stop signs.
They may increase hazards for pedestrians, as vehicles are forced close to (but not
into) the pedestrian crossing area. If the circles are used on higher volume streets that
are also bicycle routes (e.g. exceeding about 4000 vpd), bicyclists may be adversely
affected when they have to share the travel lane with vehicles around the circle. With a
series of circles, bicyclists may benefit from overall speed and volume reductions.
Some drivers, especially those of large vehicles, may turn left in front of the circle and
therefore encroach into the oncoming traffic lane. Circles do not block access to any
street. They will reduce speeds of emergency response vehicles, but they must reduce
speeds anyway at intersections. Circles may be used on emergency response routes.
Circles may be landscaped, adding greenery where asphalt was formerly present. From
a distance, trees may lead drivers to believe that the street is not a through street. New
signs are required, adding visual clutter.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. Automatic irrigation decreases the
need for landscaping maintenance and watering. Because circles are located in the
center of streets, drainage and street sweeping are not affected.
The standard traffic circle design for Palo Alto includes landscaping and automatic
irrigation, costing approximately $30,000. A hardscape design costs about $25,000.
In order to provide passage for large fire trucks, it is likely that parking will be
prohibited within about 50 feet of.the intersection on all sides of the two affected
streets. Utilities in the center of many streets may not allow planting of trees, may add
to cost, and may cause other complications.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
12. SERPENTINE STREETS AND CHICANES
Seattle
Seattle
12. SERPENTINE STREETS, CHICANES
A serpentine street or chicane is an artificially created curving two-way street on a naturally straight road
section. The curves can be created by offset centerline striping, a series of bulbouts or parking areas
installed on alternating sides of the street, or by varying the size or shape of a series of median islands. The
length of the curve and the amount of side-to-side offset can be varied to obtain more or less reduction in
speed. May be used midblock or at intersections. In addition to forced speed reduction, a serpentine
alignment that is created by landscaped islands gives the appearance that a street may not be a convenient
shortcut, thus possibly causing such drivers to avoid the route. If raised islands do not force the lane offsets,
many drivers would easily "straighten the.curves" by not staying in the proper lane in the transition area,
thus reducing the effectiveness of this measure. Lanes usually need to be narrowed in order to further
reduce the ability of drivers to straighten the curves. In some cities, chicanes are used that are only a single
lane side for two-way traffic. Such severe artificial narrowing is discouraged at this time in Palo Alto
installations.
Traffic
,Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
If the design speed of the offset transition is similar to that for other devices such as
speed humps or traffic circles, and if a series of offsets is used, volume reduction
similar to a series of those devices should occur, i.e., up to about 20 percent.
The offset transition can be designed for any amount of speed reduction. If the
horizontal offset is similar to that for other devices such as traffic circles, and ifa
series of offsets is used, speed reduction similar to a series of those devices should be
obtainable, i.e., down to about 15 mph at the offset and down to 25-30 mph between
offsets. Effectiveness of this measure is reduced if drivers are able to "straighten the
curves".
Noise could increase due to braking, accelerating, and:passing over centerline pave-
ment markers at the curves. Noise would be reduced between curves due to slower
speeds. Minimal impact on air quality and energy consumption.
If the offsets are used at intersections, vehicles will be forced toward the curb close to
(but not into) the pedestrian crossing area. This could degrade pedestrian safety.
Drivers may not stay in the proper lane in the transition area, thus posing potential
safety problems. If lanes are narrowed, bicycles and motor vehicles may be forced
together in the transition areas, which could be a problem on higher volume streets. For
¯ a short segment of serpentine street With mild and/or inl~equent horizontal offsets, the
impact on emergency services response times should not be great, as emergency
vehicle drivers can legally "straighten the curves" by driving down the center of the
roadway. Long sections may impact emergency services and thus may not be
appropriate for collector streets. A minimum width of 20 feet for two-way travel will
be maintained, as required by the Fire Department for emergency access and by the
Transportation Division for normal traffic flow.
Raised islands can be landscaped, adding greenery where asphalt was formerly present.
Painting of curbing may be required, and warning signs and reflectors are required,
decreasing aesthetic appeal.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. Automatic irrigation decreases the
need for landscaping maintenance and watering.. Depending on the design, bulbouts
may interfere with street sweepin~ and ~utters may clo~.
Cost depends heavily on length .of serpentine street segment and types of devices used
to create the horizontal offsets. Refer to costs for devices such as bulbouts and median
island slow points.
This measure may be combined with other measures, such as speed humps, creating a
"slow street" (refer to separate description for slow streets). Parking spaces will be
eliminated in bulbout locations, but may be less at intersections where parking may
already be prohibited.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
13. SPEED TABLES AND RAISED CROSSWALKS
Stanford Campus
Stanford Campus
Terman Drive, Palo Alto
13. SPEED TABLES AND RAISED CROSSWALKS
Speed tables and raised crosswalks are a gradual rise and fall in the pavement, typically to a maximum
height of three inches over a distance of 22 feet in the direction of travel. The central ten-foot section of the
table is flat. They may be used singly for a raised crosswalk, or in a series of two or more for the purpose of
speed reduction. When used as a raised crosswalk, the table should extend all the way to the curb, possibly
requiring new storm drainage construction and thus increasing cost considerably. Speed tables and humps.
usually taper down to street grade at the gutter, thus leaving the gutter open for normal drainage. The long
length of speed tables allows long wheelbase vehicles to cross with substantially less jolting than with the
12-foot humps, permitting higher speeds. Their longer profile results in higher speeds across and between
the devices compared to speed humps. Thus these devices may be used on collector streets where speeds
are usually higher, and which may also be emergency vehicle and transit bus routes. Usually, speed tables
and raised crosswalks are placed midblock, but a raised crosswalk may be permitted at an intersection
under certain circumstances. Local examples: Terman Drive, Bryant Court (Palo Alto); Campus Drive
between Quarry Road and Ross Way (Stanford).
Traffic Because speed tables do not reduce speeds as much as do speed humps, volume
Volume reduction due to discomfort and slower travel times is less. A series of speed tables
will typically reduce volumes by about ten percent. This minimal traffic diversion to
other streets makes tables acceptable for use on collector ~treets.
Speed .Speed reduction depends on the spacing of tables. At the closest spacing of 200 feet,
85~ percentile.speeds average about 30 - 33 mph between tables. 85~ perc.entile speeds
at the tables themselves is reduced to about 25 to 30 mph. The less abrupt speed
reduction of tables makes them acceptable for use on collector streets, where speeds
are generall~ higher.
Slower speeds result in lower noise levels between tables. Noise levels at the tables
themselves may increase due to braking, accelerating and bouncing of cargo in trucks.
Minimal change in air quality and energy consumption.
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
Speed tables have not caused safety problems or liability claims. Long wheelbase
vehicles can more easily cross 22-foot tables than 12-foot humps, making them
acceptable for use on collector streets. If speed tables were to proliferate on collector
streets, this could eventually create a cumulative negative impact on emergency
vehicle response times, restricting their further installation.
Speed tables have nearly the same negative aesthetic impacts as speed humps, except
that the fiat portion of the table may be constructed with pavers or textured concrete.
The choice of acceptable materials may be severely limited by the need to withstand
the heavy vehicle loading that occurs due to the vertical deflection and heavier traffic
loads on collector streets.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. In addition, speed tables interfere
with street resurfacing and may have to be removed and replaced for such projects.
Any special pavement treatment on the top of speed tables may require more frequent
and expensive maintenance than asphalt.
About $5,000 - $8,000 per table when constructed of asphalt. Special textured .
pavement treatments on the top of the table and/or the ramps can approximately double
this cost. For raised crosswalks that extend across the gutters, an additional $5000 -
$10,000 per location would be required, depending on the extent of new storm sewer
cormections.
The use of raised traffic calming measures on collector streets should be done with
restraint, due to the impacts on the response times of the fire and paramedic services.
The Fire Department may not permit the use of too many such measures because
collector streets are part of the emergency response street network. Parking is allowed
on and next to speed tables. Parking may be removed in advance of raised crosswalks
for visibility purposes.
Appendix." Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
Speed Humps
Colorado/Gaspar
14. SPEED HUMPS’
Speed Humps
Cowper/Oregon Expressway
Speed Hump
Ross Road/Colorado
Speed Humps
Cowper/Marion
14. SPEED HUMPS FOR LOCAL STREETS
Speed humps are a gradual rise and fall in the pavement surface, usually with a circular profile, to a
maximum height of three inches over a distance of 12 feet in the direction of travel. Typically they are
installed in a series of two or more separated by at least about 200 feet. This type of speed hump is installed
only on local residential streets. The primary purpose of speed humps is to produce sufficient discomfort to
a driver to reduce travel speed to 15 mph, which is posted as the advisory speed. The spacing of speed
humps is such as to result in an average 85~ percentile speed of 25 - 30 mph between humps, depending on
the spacing. This design causes drivers to reduce speed, yet allows them to maintain control of their
vehicles. Drivers of longer wheelbase vehicles, such as trucks and buses, will normally have to reduce
speeds to less than 15 mph~o avoid discomfort. For this~eason, this type of speed hump is not usually
installed on transit, truck, or emergency vehicle routes. A primary characteristic of speed humps is their
high-speed control effectiveness at minimal cost. Local examples in Palo Alto: Cowper Street and Ross
Road south of Oregon Expressway, Marion and Colorado Avenues east of Cowper Street, Guinda Street
north of University Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue between Seneca and Chaucer Streets.
Traffic A series of at least three speed humps will typically reduce traffic volume~ by about 10
Volume - 20 percent, with the reduction usually being in "through" traffic that can shift to
other routes.
Speed Speed reduction depends on the spacing of humps, ranging from approximately 200 to
600 feet. With the closest spacing, 85t~ percentile speeds are usually reduced to about
25 mph between humps. 85~ percentile speeds at the humps themselves is reduced to
about 15 to 20 mph.
Slower speeds result in lower noise levels between humps. At humps themselves, noise
can increase due to braking, accelerating and bouncing of cargo in trucks. Minimal
change in air quality and energy consumption.
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
Humps have not caused safety problems or liability claims. Long wheelbase vehicles,
including fire trucks, must cross humps very slowly to avoid significant jolting.
Drivers may drive in the gutter to partially avoid the humps. A series of bumps will
cause substantial delay in emergency vehicle response times, but does not reduce
access to streets. Palo Alto Fire Department has experienced at least one injury to a
firefighter who hit his head on the roof of the truck while passing over a hump. While
the Fire Department will alloW humps to be placed on local streets, proliferation of
humps on many local streets may eventually cause a cumulative negative impact on
emergency vehicle response times. This impact may restrict further installation of
humps in the future.
Because speed humps cannot be landscaped and must be clearly marked with signing
and striping, their negative visual impact is substantial.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. In addition, humps interfere with
street resurfacing and may have to be removed and replaced for such projects.
$3500 per hump, including signing and striping.
Speed humps are very common in California cities, with some cities having hundreds
of installations. Speed humps can be longer than 12 feet and have a flat top, in which
case they are referred to as raised crosswalks and speed tables (refer to separate
descriptions of these devices). Due to their effectiveness and low cost, the Palo Alto
traffic calming program provides preferences for speed hump installations under
certain circumstances. Parking is allowed on and next to speed humps.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
15. SLOW STREETS
Slow Streets
Milvia Street, Berkeley
15. SLOW STREETS
The slow street employs a combination of traffic calming devices. On Milvia Street in Berkeley, the slow
street employs road bumps, bike lanes, a serpentine centerline, stop signs, and a one-way closure at one
end. The purpose of the design is to slow traffic.
Traffic
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Volume can be reduced by 10 -20 percent in a 1 - 3 block segment of slow street.
Speed reduction will depend on the individual traffic calming devices used. Speeds
will normally be reduced to about 25 -30 mph between devices and 15 - 20 mph at the
devices.
¯Minimal impact on air qualityand fuel consumption. Noise impacts from speed humps
as described for that device.
The effects on safety and emergency services depend on the mix of devices used (refer
to individual descriptions). A slow street may be acceptable on emergency response
routes if speed humps are not employed.
Impacts on aesthetics are the same as for the various devices used. The density of
measures used may result in a heavy concentration of signs and striping which will ¯
degrade aesthetics. Use of landscaped islands adds greenery where asphalt was
formerly present.
Maintenance Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. Refer to maintenance requirements
forthe individual devices used.
Approximate The cost is the sum of costs for the various devices employed. Refer to costs for
Cost individual devices such as bulbouts, speed humps, speed tables, and median islands.
Appendix." Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
16. TURN PROHIBITION SIGNS
M
16. TURN PROHIBITION SIGNS
The basic purpose of turn prohibition signs is to prohibit certain turns in order to improve safety or prevent
congestion on main streets. As used in neighborhood traffic calling, "No Right Turn" or "No Left Turn"
signs, with or without specified hours of the day, can be used to block or break up shortcutting traffic
patterns on residential streets. Since these are passive devices, their success depends on their general
acceptance by drivers and on police enforcement. Without enforcement, driver violation rates can be high.
Even with enforcement, violation rates are typically 20 percent, and generally leads to resident complaints.
Turn prohibition signs are an inexpensive way to achieve volume reductions similar to diverters, median
barriers and street closures, but driver violation and requests for enforcement are usually nagging problems.
Local examples: Churchill at Alia (Palo Alto), Willow Road between Middlefield and U.S. 101 (Menlo
Park).
Traffic
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
Significant volume reduction is possible, up to about 70 percent. Potential large
undesired diversion of traffic to other nearby streets. Best used where this diversion is
to arterial or major collector streets.
If the movement being prohibited had formerly been used by a driver population as a
speedy through route, substantial reduction in the incidence of speeding is possible.
Speed of remaining traffic is not affected.
Noise reduction is proportional to volume reduction. Emissions and fuel consumption
will decrease on street where the restriction is located, but could be offset by minor
increase due to detours of residential traffic in the nearby area.
Accident reduction is expected if the prohibited movement had been an accident
problem. No impacts on emergency services.
A single sign has an incremental negative aesthetic impact.
Maintenance for a single sign is minimal.
$150 per installation.
Limited experience in Palo Alto suggests that regular Police enforcement must be
provide to prevent flagrant violation. Because such enforcement is usually not
possible, this measure is usually not recommended for traffic calming purposes. If
channelization (raised islands) are used in conjunction with a turn prohibition sign,
compliance is increased, along with cost, reducing the need for Police enforcement.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures .May 10,2000
17. DIAGONAL DIVERTERS, FORCED CHANNELIZATION,
AND MEDIAN BARRIERS
Diagonal Diverters with Full Street Closures
Median Barrier
Park Blvd/Mead0w, Palo Alto
Median Barrier
Charleston/Louis, Palo Alto
17. DIAGONAL DIVERTERS, FORCED TURN CHANNELIZATION,
MEDIAN BARRIERS
Forced tum channelization refers to one or more raised traffic islands at intersection approaches or within
intersections, designed to force traffic to make or forego certain movements. There are numerous variations
of design and placement of islands depending on which movements are being allowed or prevented. A
diagonal diverter forces all traffic onto an intersecting street. These measures break up through routes,
making vehicle travel through a neighborhood difficult, while not actually preventing it. Thus, these
devices are more forgiving than street closures. The primary purpose of these measures is to reduce or
eliminate through trafficmovements. Residents must adopt a new driving route to access the affected street.
Bicycle and pedestrian access is usually maintained. Similar restrictions in traffic movements may be
accomplished by regulatory signing only, but the raised islands provide a physical deterrence that signing
by itself cannot provide. Local examples in Palo Alto: Park Boulevard at Margarita Avenue, Bryant Street
at Embarcadero Road, E. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road at Park Boulevard, Charleston Road at Louis
Road.
Traffic
Volume
Speed
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
Up to about 70% reduction possible, _depending.on how many movements are
restricted. Potential large undesired diversion of traffic to other nearby streets. Best
used where this diversion is to arterial or major collector streets.
Reduces speeds in the vicinity of the device and may also reduce or eliminate the
driver population that had previously used the street as a speedy through route. Thus,
the incidence of speeding may be reduced.
Reduces noise if volumes are reduced. Emissions and fuel consumption may decrease
on street where the device is located, but offset by minor increase due to detours of
residential traffic in the nearby area.
Reduces accident potential in the immediate vicinity, but may shift the potential to
other streets. If an opening in the closure provides emergency access with a raised
block in the center ("pan basher"), fire and paramedic vehicles will encounter minimal
delay but police vehicles will not be able to pass. If access requires the unlocking of a
removable bollard, delay will be substantial, and emergency drivers will usually use an
alternate route. A minimum width of 20 feet for two-way travel will be maintained. For
one-way sections (such as where a median splits the two travel directions), a minimum
width of 16 feet will be maintained for one-way travel where the one-way sections are
longer than 30 feet. Where the one-way section is less than 30 feet long, a minimum
width often feet will be maintained for one-way travel. These widths are the minimum
required by the Fire Department for emergency access and by the Transportation
Division for normal traffic flow.
Islands may. be landscaped, adding greenery where asphalt was formerly present.
Required signs and reflective devices may be unattractive.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. Automatic irrigation decreases the
need for landscaping maintenance and watering. Depending on the design, half
closures may interfere with street sweeping and gutters may clog.
Costs will vary widely depending upon the size, number and location or raised islands.
For a diverter, a budget design (not attached to curb) is $12,000. High aesthetic/low
maintenance design (attached to curb): $40,000 (varies depending on new storm
drainage construction). Landscaped median barrier with automatic irrigation: $25,000.
Depending on the design, drivers may drive around the channelized area and make
illegal turns or U-turns. Drivers of high-clearance private vehicles may driver through
the pan-basher type of opening, generating resident complaints and need for occasional
enforcement. Parking spaces may be eliminated in the vicinity of these devices.
Appendix." Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
18. ONE-WAY (HALF) STREET CLOSURES
Half-Street Closure
Park Blvd
Half-Street Closure
Park Blvd/Chestnut
Portland
18. ONE-WAY (HALF) STREET CLOSURES
A one-way closure is a closure to traffic in one direction only, while permitting two-way traffic on either
side. This closure is best installed to prohibit entry to a street segment, rather than to prohibit exit. Its
primary, purpose is to eliminate shortcutting or through traffic in one direction on the street on which it is
installed. Access for emergency vehicles and bicycle and pedestrian access are maintained. Residents must
adopt a new driving route to access the affected street. Many of the characteristics of full street closures
apply to half-closures, but the latter are less extreme because they allow traffic flow in one direction. Half
street closures can take the form of a simple barricade or landscaped islands. Because they only block half
the street, they are easily violated, thus .generating resident.complaints. Local examples: Park Boulevard
north of College Avenue; Park Boulevard south of Lambert Avenue.
Traffic Eliminates all but local residential access traffic in one direction on the street on which
Volume it is installed. Potential large undesired diversions of traffic to other nearby streets.
Best used where this diversion is to arterial or major collector streets.
Speed Does not reduce speeds, per se, but eliminates part of the driver population that
previousl.y had used the street as a speedy through route. Thus, the incidence, of
speeding may be dramaticall~ reduced
Due to reduced traffic volume on the street, noise and emissions are reduced on that
street. Emissions and fuel consumption may increase due to minor detours of
residential traffic.
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
Reduces accident potential in the immediate vicinity, but may shift the potential to
other streets. Emergency vehicle access is not impaired, as drivers can enter the open
side of the street. For one-way sections, a minimum width of 16 feet will be
maintained for one-way travel where the one-way sections are longer than 30 feet.
Where the one-way section is less than 30 feet long, a minimum width often feet will
be maintained for one-way travel. These widths are the minimum required by the Fire
Department for emergency access and by the Transportation Division for normal
traffic flow.
Half closures may be landscaped, adding greenery where asphalt was formerly present.
Required signs and reflective devices may be unattractive.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. Automatic irrigation decreases the
need for landscaping maintenance and watering. Depending on the design, half
closures may interfere with street sweeping and gutters may clog.
Budget design (not attached to curbs): $6,000. High aesthetic/low maintenance design
(attached to curb): $20,000 (higher or lower depending on new storm drainage
construction).
Ease of driver violation (driving the wrong way around the half closure) may result in
resident complaints and may require Police Department enforcement Parking spaces
eliminated in half clbsure locations.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
19. FULL STREET CLOSURES
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
19. FULL STREET CLOSURE
A street closure is a complete closure, of a street either at an intersection or midblock. Its primary purpose is
.to eliminate shortcutting or through traffic on the local street on which it is installed. Ideally, through traffic
will be mostly rerouted to streets intended for that purpose (arterials and, to a lesser degree, collectors).
Access for emergency vehicles can be provided across the closure. Bicycle and pedestrian access is
maintained. This is perhaps the most extreme traffic management measure in that it requires a complete
detour for all drivers. Residents must adopt a new driving route to access the affected street. Street closures
are discouraged by Policy T-33 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan ("Keep all neighborhood streets open
unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable
alternatives, ~or unless a closure would increase the.use of-alternative transportation modes.") Street
closures are controversial because (i) unless carefully sited, they unbalance the traditional traffic street grid,
easily diverting large volumes of traffic onto other residential streets; and (ii) they impose significant
detours for local residents. Multiple street closures can create a cul-de-sac pattern similar to new suburban
subdivisions, except that access is retained for cyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles. Street closures
can take the form of a simple barricade, landscaped islands, a cul-de-sac, or a mini-park. Local examples in
Palo Alto: Evergreen Park and College Terrace neighborhoods, Bryant Street at Lowell and E1 Verano
Avenues, various locations along Embarcadero Road.
Traffic Eliminates all but local residefitial access traffic on the street on which it is installed.
Volume Potential large undesired diversion of traffic to other similar streets. Best used where
this diversion is to arterial or major collector streets.
Speed Does not reduce speeds, per se, but eliminates the driver population that previously had
used the street as a speedy through route. Thus, the incidence of speeding is
dramatically reduced.
Due to reduced traffic volume on the street, noise and emissions are reduced on that
street. Emissions and fuel consumption may increase due to minor detours of
residential traffic.
Noise, Air
Quality,
Energy
Consumption
Traffic
Safety,
Emergency
Response
Aesthetics
Maintenance
Approximate
Cost
Other
Reduces accident potential in the immediate vicinity, but may shift the potential to
other streets. If an opening in the closure provides emergency access with a raised
block in the center ("pan basher"), fire and paramedic vehicles will encounter minimal
delay but police vehicles will not be able to pass. If access requires the unlocking of a
removable bollard, delay will be substantial, and emergency drivers will usually use an
alternate route.
Closures may be landscaped, adding greenery where asphalt was formerly present.
Required signs and reflective devices may be unattractive.
Every traffic calming device requires maintenance. Automatic irrigation decreases the
need for landscaping maintenance and watering. Depending on the design, closures
may interfere with street sweeping and gutters may clog.
Budget design (not attached to curbs): $12,000. High aesthetic/low maintenance design
(attached to curb): $40,000 (varies depending on new storm drainage construction).
Mini-park design: $100,000+
Closures with emergency vehicle openings created by a low concrete block ("pan
basher") may be violated by high clearance non-emergency vehicles, generating
resident complaints and need for occasional police enforcement. Parking spaces~
eliminated in closure locations.
Appendix: Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures May 10,2000
DIRECTORY OF
TRAFFIC CALMING
WEB SITES
Compiled By: Bhavna Mistry
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Transportation Division
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Ashok Aggarwal
Olubayo Elimisha
Rob Gill
Amanda Jones
Gayle Likens
Bhavna Mistry
Carl Stoffel¯Christopher Thnay
A Review of Current Traffic Calming Techniques By T. Harvey (HETS)
http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/primavera!p calmin.~.html#AR
Contents, Abstract, Introduction, Background, Traffic Calming Techniques, Traffic calming
on links, Traffic calming at junctions, Gateways Traffic management measures, Traffic
calming on main roads, Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures, Speed reduction,
Accident reduction, Noise reduction, Air, pollution, Public Consultation, The Cost of Traffic
Calming, Conclusions, References, Appendix A: Examples of Traffic Calming on Main
Roads Appendix References
Canadian Guide to .Neighborhood Traffic Calming
http://www.tac-atc.c~t/pro~ams/calmin~/calming.htm
¯Chapter 1 provides an introduction to traffic calming, highlighting the key issues affecting
planning, design and implementation.
¯Chapter 2 describes how the community, elected officials and municipal staff can participate
in a meaningful and effective way in a traffic calming study.
¯Chapter 3 provides information and a process to assist in screening and selecting the most
appropriate measures to resolve a particular transportation problem. The chapter describes 25
different measures currently used by Canadian municipalitiesto calm traffic, which include
vertical deflection, horizontal deflection, obstruction and signing measures..
¯Chapter 4 provides detailed design guidelines.for the 16 traffic calming measures carried
forward fi’om Chapter 3. The chapter begins with a discussion of the general factors to be
considered in the design phase, including the implications of grades, long vehicles, surface
drainage, maintenance, materials, street-scaping, and temporary installations. The remainder
of the chapter provides detailed geometric, signing and pavement marking design guidelines.
Center for Transportation Research and Education
http:!/www.ctre.iastate.edu/research.htm
¯CTRE ensures that research will be oriented toward real-world results and applications by
structuring its research activities around interdisciplinary and interorganizational teams.
CTRE staff conduct research in
¯Advanced Transportation Technologies: CTRE is a leader in the development and
evaluation of field operational tests of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) for commercial
vehicle operations (CVO).
¯Transportation Planning and Information Systems: CTRE is a leader in fusing data with
technology to create tools for transportation planning and problem solving, and specializes in
geographic information systems applications for transportation (GIS-T).
¯Portland Cement Concrete: The new Center for Pol~land Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement
Technology will condtict training, technology transfer, and applied research on PCC
pavement design, construction, materials science, and maintenance.
Citizens Alliance for Livable Municipalities, Wakefield Chapter
http:i!ourworld..compuserve.com/homepa~es/kban’ett/calmwake.htm
¯Improving the quality of life through formation of a safer, community-enriching and
environmentally friendly transportation system
¯How to Start a Traffic Calming Group in Your Town
¯A group of concerned Wakefield Massachusetts citizens working to preserve and restore the
peacefulness, vitality, attractiveness, and safety of our community, which is threatened by
excessive speed and volume of automobile traffic.
¯Advocate for: traffic calming for slower, safer speeds, reducing the volume of traffiC and
demand for parking, improving conditions for walking and bicycling.
¯Issues and Potential Projects
¯Send email to CALM Wakefield (74650.120@compuserve.com)
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
http:i/www.cabq.gov/streets/ntmp.html
¯City Involvement, Policies, Objectives, Types of Projects : (1) Local Street Improvement
Projects, (2) Neighborhood Area Studies, (3) Collector Speed Control Projects
City of Austin, Texas
Transportation Department
http://www.ci.austin.tx, us/roadworks/
City of Bellevue, Washington
http ://204.236.15.221/transportatiordtraffic/neighbor.htm
¯Department Overview, Current Projects, ROW Permits, Bicyling in Bellevue, Useful Links,
Programs, Construction Updates, Find Your Bus Route, FAQs, View Current Bellevue
Traffic, Plans and Studies, Downtown Access Project
City of Berkeley, California
Public Works Department
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/pw/traffic/traffic.html
¯Traffic: Design Features, Traffic Calming Devices
¯Parking: Parking Restrictions, Parking Requirements - Plan, Residential Permit
¯Parking Program
¯Other: Speed Limit, Block Party Activity
¯Traffic Volume Counts
¯Map ’
¯Truck Routes
City of Boulder, Colorado
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/tr7.html
¯Your Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
¯About the NTMP - General Information
¯Background Information
¯NTMP Educational Resources
¯Enforcement - Photo Radar And Photo Red Light Information
¯Traffic Mitigation Device Explanations & Evaluations
¯Traffic Mitigation Device Locations
City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Traffic Calming Program
http:/!www.cit, c.broken-arrow.ok.us/trafcalm.htm
City of Buffalo, New York
Neighborhood Traffic Calming
http:/lwww.buflhet.net/-allemand/TC.html
City of Cambridge, Massachusetts
Cambridge Traffic Calming Program
http ~cambridgema.ab~ut.c~m~ca~neweng~andus/cambridgema/gi/d¥namic/~ffsite.htm?site=http
://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/%TECDD/envirotrans/trafcalm!
¯The goal of traffic calming projects
¯Current and Previous Projects
¯Bibliography of Traffic Calming works
City of Cupertino, California
Neighborhood Traffic Management
http:I!www.cupertino.or~traffic/NTM.html
¯Neighborhood traffic management is a high priority goal for the Cupertino City Council. We
want to have livable neighborhoods that are free from traffic impacts. Staff is available to help
neighborhoods to resolve their traffic concerns in a public review process.
¯Traffic calming goals
¯Traffic calming objectives
City of Fairfax, Virginia.
http://www.ci.fair fax.va, us/citvinfo!traffic.html
¯Policy For Use Of Traffic Calming On City Streets - City of Fairfax, Virginia
,¯Installation of Residential Traffic Calming (RTC) Devices
¯Residential Traffic Calming Devices
City of Fort Worth, Texas
Department of Public Works
Speed Humps Project
http:!/ci.tbrt-worth.tx.uslfortworth/tpw/SpeedHumpPil0t2.htm
City of Houston, Texas
Department of Public Works and Engineering
http:/!www.ci.houston.tx.us/departine/works/
¯Speed Hump Policies and Procedures
City of Las Vegas, Nevada
Department of Transportation
Speed Humps
http://www.ci.las-vegas.nv.us/speed bumps,htln
City of Missoula, Montana
Traffic Calming Program
http://www.ci.missoula.mt.ns/publicworksicalming.htm
City of New York, New York
http:!/www.ci.n¥c.ny.us/html/dot/html/aboutdot/faqs.html#Slowin "~ Down
FAQ: Slowing Down Traffic: Traffic Calming Information
Q: What is the difference between a speed hump and a speed bump?
Q: How can I get a speed hump installed on my block?
Q: How can I have a mid-block crosswalk installed on my street?
Traffic
City of Portland, Oregon
Traffic Calming Program
http :/!www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic ManaKement/trafficcalmin~/
¯How it Works
¯Traffic Calming Devices
¯Portland Project Evaluations
¯Traffic Calming and the Law
¯Current and Future Projects
¯New Traffic Calming Research
¯Studies and Reports
¯Traffic Calming Calendar
¯Program Info and Staff
City of Salem, Oregon
Strategies For Citizen Involvement In Traffic Issues
http//www.open.o~W-scserv/neighbor/h6traffc.htm
¯Introduction, Remembering the Big Picture, Preliminary Contact with Traffic Staff, Make the
Appropriate Contacts, Know the Key Players in the System, Gather Your Information,
Presenting Your Case at Meetings, Conclusion
City of San Buenaventura, California
Neighborhood Traffic Management and Calming Program
http:/!www.ci.ventura.ca.us/meet/depts/traffic!Traffic Calming Program/Pro~ram.html
¯Traffic Calming for Livable Neighborhoods
¯Neighborhood Traffic Management Options .
¯Current City Practices
¯Proposed Neighborhood Traffic Management Process
¯Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Devices
¯Effect on emergency Vehicles Response Time
¯Traffic Diversion
¯Impacts to Transit and Utility Vehicles
¯Consideration for Other Roadway Uses
¯Noise Impacts
¯Loss of Parking
¯Liability Exposure Implications
¯Visual Impacts and Aesthetic Concerns
¯Increased Maintenance Costs
City of San Francisco, California
Strategic Analysis Report on Traffic Calming - Initiated by Commissioner Leslie Katz.
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/s ftaJfinal.htm
City of Tempe, Arizona
Traffic Management Program
http:/!www.tempe.gov/traffic/trafin.~nt.htm
¯This plan has the goals, policies, guidelines for placing traffic Calming devices in the city.
Speed Hump Request Flow Chart
Requests Procedure
City of Toronto, Ontario Canada
Installation of Speed Humps on City Streets - Policy Report, August 1997
http://old.ci _ty.toronto.on.ca/4service!spdhmp~htm
"Do speed humps work? Study says .they divert traffic to parallel streets"
By: Andrew D. Beadle, Staff’Writer
http:!/www, gazette.net!archives/199806/news/count~/sto~007.html
Federal Highway Administration
Flexible Design/Traffic Calming
http://www fl~wa dot.gov/environment!calmin~2.htm
To help meet that challenge, the FHWA has prepared a guide, "Flexibility in Highway
Desig_~, for the purpose of provoking innovative thinking for fully considering the
community values and scenic, historic, aesthetic, and other cultural values, along with the
safety and mobility needs of our highway transportation system. The Guide does not establish
any new or different geometric design standards or criteria for highways and streets in scenic,
historic, or otherwise environmentally or culturally sensitive areas, nor does it imply that
safety and mobility are less important design considerations. Instead, it should be used as a
companion to the AASHTO "Green Book" helping highway project managers accommodate
these various and often conflicting values when solving transportation needs.
Fehr & Peers Associates. Inc - Transportation Consultants
http://www.fehrandpeers.corn/
¯Your complete guide to traffic calming and neighborhood traffic management, and how they
can be used to reduce speeds, reduce traffic volumes, and improve safety in residential
neighborhoods.
This informational traffic calming site is provided as a pubic service to city and county public
works officials, residents, motorists, and anyone else interested in finding out about traffic
calming: what it is, where it has been one, how well it works, etc.
How is Fehr & Peers Associates involved in Traffic Calming? The information on this site is
drawn primarily from Traffic Calming State of Practice, by Reid Ewing, written for the
Institute of Transportation Engineers with funding from the Federal Highway Administration.
Institute of Transportation Engineers
http://www, ite.or~oitraffic!index.htm
¯Calming Measures, Library, Seminar Materials, Events, Selected Materials, Discussions,
Other Links
The following are cities or counties that have reported experiences with traffic calming, but do not have
any traffic calming information on their Web sites:
Annapolis, MD, USA; Anne Arundel County, MD, USA; Asheville, NC; Boca Raton, FL, USA; Brea, CA,
USA; Bridgeport, CT, USA; Broward County, FL, USA; Chicago, IL, USA; Chico, CA, USA; Collier
County, PL, USA; Columbus, OH, USA; Carrborro, NC, USA; Costa Mesa, CA, USA; Cypress, CA, USA;
Dallas, TX, USA; Dayton, OH, USA; Decatur, IL, USA; Edmonds, WA, USA; E1 Monte, CA, USA; El
Paso, TX, USA; Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA; Fort Worth, TX, USA; Fresno, CA, USA; .Gainesville, FL,
USA; Germantown, TN,USA; Gwinnett County, GA, USA; Hartford, CT, USA; Hawthorne, CA, USA;
Hilton Head Island, SC, USA; Kitchner, Ontario, Canada; La Mesa, CA, USA; Little Rock, AR, USA;
L~Jng Beach, CA, USA; Los Angeles, CA, USA; Menlo Park, CA, USA; Merced, CA, USA; Moscow, ID,
USA; Nepean, Ontario, Canada; New Orleans, LA, USA; Oakland, CA, USA; Ojai, CA, USA; Orange
County, CA, USA; Orinda, CA, USA; Palm Beach County, FL, USA; Palm Desert, CA, USA; Pasadena,
CA, USA; Phoenix, AZ, USA; Portland, ME, USA; Poway, CA, USA; Prince William County, VA, USA;
Raleigh, NC, USA; Raytown, MO, USA; San Bernardino, CA, USA; San Diego, CA, USA; San Jose, CA,
USA; San Leandro, CA, USA; Scottsdale, AZ, USA; Seminole County, FL, USA; Tallahassee,.FL, USA;
Thornton, CO, USA; Troy, MI, USA; Upland, CA, USA; Upper Arlington, OH, USA; West Palm Beach,
FL, USA
Linden Hills Neighborhood - Traffic Calming and Bicycle Plan
http://freenet.msp.mn.us/ip/nhoods/mpls/linden/transtop.htm
¯Part I: Purpose and Background Information - pages 1-13
¯Part II: Problems, Neighborhood-Suggested Solutions & Staff Recommendations: pages 14-41
Montgomery County, Maryland
Maryland Department of Public Works and Transportation
Residential Traffic Calming Program
http://www.dpwt.com!TraffPkgDiv.htm
Speeding and unsafe driving practices on residential streets have become increasing concern
to County residents and to the government agencies charged with ensuring traffic safety.
Excessive speeds jeopardize both the safety and "liveability" of our neighborhoods. The
Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT) and the Department of Police have
cooperatively implemented a comprehensive residential speed control program which enlists
community residents in helping to solve the speeding problem and improve the residential
environment. The program includes the three components necessary to successfully reduce
speeding: education, engineering and enforcement.
DPWT and the police provide traffic safety services for over 1600 miles of residential streets.
In order to provide the most effective service for these streets given resources, we have
developed a triage system for addressing excessive speed on residential streets: Low Volume:
Local Traffic Streets, Moderate Volume: Collector Streets, Higher Volume: Collector Streets.
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program For Residential streets
Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, September 1995 Author: Nancy Sabol Conger
This document was part of a Community Service Fellowship which studied the concept of
Traffic Calming as initiated by th6 Salisbury Road/Corey Farm Neighborhood Association.
The fellowship was funded by the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, The Town
of Brookline Public Works Department, the Salisbury Road/Corey Farm Neighborhood
Association (SRCFNA) and the Brookline Community Fund.
TLCNET: The Transportation for Livable Communities Network
http://www.tlcnetwork.or~/resource.html
On-line resources:
¯ Institute of Transportation Engineers, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials*, Bicycle Federation of America/Bicycle and Pedestrian
Clearinghouse Surface Transportation Policy Project*, Train Riders Northeast Transportation
Alternatives (Greater New York City bicycle and pedestrian advocates) Flora Community
Web Site Metro Magazine’s Transit Center National Trust for Historic Preservation
Transportation Research Boa~:d U.S. Department of Transportation*, Cai’s and Their
Environmental Impact Federal Transit Administration American Public Transit Association
Local Government Commission/Center for Livable Communities Sustainable Communities
Network LUTRAQ (1000 Friends of Oregon’s Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality Project)
Pedestrian Network*, Congress for the New Urbanism City of Portland Traffic Calming
Information Site
¯Email Listserv
¯New and Commentary on Transportation
¯Community Bulletins
Traditional Neighborhood Development
Traffic Calming Toolkit
http://unix.worldpath.net2-chellnaan/tct.html
Traffic Calming - A Report By: Kris Jacobson
http://www.netaccess.on.ca!-iacobson/calmin~.html
Traffic Calming in Australia, Canada, and Europe
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rili/9801/ri980105.htm
¯Traffic calming truly has become an issue of international significance. It has been a focus of
debate in the United States, Australia, Canada, and many European countries. Transportation
’professionals from several countries discussed their approach to traffic calming in the July
1997 issue of the H’E Journal.
TRANSPEED
Transportation Partnership in Engineering Education Development
Traffic Calming - Techniques and Management
http://www.en.~r.washington.edu!-uw-epp!Transpeed/trc.html
Web cams of Traffic Sites
http://www.~~~ksmart.c~m/eus ~/eus53832/eus624 ~ 6/eus328828/eus ~ 42577/eus277666/eus29~ ~ ~8
/r?l&izl&pin=991228x5c2be87663f4bd0baal &