HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-41-98
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALIlY OF CLARINGTON
X~JtQ:lMXIJi2N:~X~~~x
REPORT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Report #:
WD-4l-98
File#:
File #
Res. # G PA -40G .~~
By-Law #
Date:
JUNE 22, 1998
Subject:
SPEED HUMPS - ENNISKILLEN
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-41-98 be received;
2. THAT the Municipality should continue to monitor the progress of traffic calming in other
areas and review any future guidelines adopted by the Transportation Association of
Canada (T AC), Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers (CITE), and the Ontario
Traffic Conference (OTC);
3. THAT the Municipality not experiment with speed humps in Enniskillen or any other
location at this time but defer such actions until standardized traffic calming guidelines are
established;
4. THAT CmIDcil consider establishing a Traffic Management Committee and work with a
consulting firm to create a comprehensive municipal policy, if funds are available, during
the 1999 budget deliberations; and
5. THAT Mike Bilsky and Lloyd Thomas be advised of Council's decision.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No 1: Key Map
No 2: Correspondence dated April 1 and April 23, 1998 from Mike Bilsky
RECYCLED~PAPIER
PAPER '+tJ:1 RECfCLE ...
THtS IS PAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
11 89
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 2
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 At a meeting held on January 12, 1998, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington
passed the following resolution:
"THAT the delegations from Mike Bilsky and Lloyd Thomas be acknowledged;
THAT the suggestion of the installation of speed humps as a traffic calming device
for the community of Enniskillen be referred to the Director of Public Works for
review and preparation of a report to be submitted to the General Purpose and
Administration Committee; and
THAT Mike Bilsky and Lloyd Thomas be advised of Council's decision."
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
3.1 The speed humps requested for Enniskillen are a form of Traffic Calming Device which is
presently being tested at various locations in Ontario, including sites in Pickering.
3.2 Overview (Definition developed by OTC sub-committee)
Traffic Calming is the combination of physical measures and supportive environment that
reduces the negative effects of motor vehicle use on individuals and society, in general, by
changing the design and role of streets to serve a broad range of transportation, social and
environmental goals and objectives including among others the following:
Goals:
Increased quality of life, safer and more attractive streets to promote
pedestrian, cycle and transit use; and
1 1 90
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 3
Objectives:
Slower speeds for motor vehicles, reduction of collision frequency and
severity, improvement of safety and perception of safety for non-motorized
users of the street, reduction of the need for police enforcement, provision of
more greenery.
Traffic calming measures physically alter the design of the street through vertical
and lateral changes in the road, constrictions, entrance features, mini traffic circles,
smaller comer radii, narrow pavement widths at selected locations, and related
streetscaping.
3.3 Traffic Calming Guidelines
Although a number of municipalities are experimenting with vanous traffic calming
techniques, there are no approved uniform guidelines or criteria for installation or signing.
The installation of speed humps is actually the installation of a road hazard which forces
traffic to slow down, however, if a motorist does not slow down he/she could lose control of
the vehicle.
In response to this, the Transportation Association of Canada (T AC), Canadian Institute of
Transportation Engineers (CITE) and the Ontario Traffic Conference (OTC) have
established committees that are working together to develop uniform guidelines on all
aspects of traffic calming, including conceptual and technical merits, legal ramifications and
potential funding sources. This final report may be published by the end of 1998.
3.4 Policies
The Municipality could create a Traffic Management Committee to develop a traffic
management policy. The committee members would review new approaches to subdivision
design and develop traffic management strategies for existing communities to reduce the
negative effects of traffic. Traffic management does not look at one street individually, but
1 j 9 1
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 4
rather looks at the traffic in large area sections. The committee could consist of, but not be
limited to, members of Planning, Public Works, Fire, and a traffic management consulting
firm with additional input from school boards, police, ambulance and the public.
The committee's terms of reference should be broadly based so that in addition to reviewing
traditional road design, classifications, and placement of traffic controls, they would also
assist in the development of parking controls, speed zones, traffic calming devices and
community based traffic safety initiatives such as "neighbourhood speed watch" or "road
watch" programs. The committee should also work with the school boards to encourage the
design of on-site parking for parents and bus loading zones and programs such as "parents
on patrol", "the walking school bus" and student safety patrollers.
During 1995, the firm of Totten Sims Hubicki Associates worked briefly with staff in
reviewing some traffic calming proposals. Recent discussions estimated the upset cost
associated with the development of a Traffic Management/Traffic Calming policy report
and educational training sessions would cost under $10,000.
3.5 Traffic Calming for Speed Controls
Although residents are concerned about traffic volumes, they are more concerned about
vehicle speeds and the safety of their children. In the past, stop signs represented the
predominant request, but now more and more residents are enquiring about the traffic
calming devices other municipalities are experimenting with.
Municipalities must make a careful assessment of traffic calming measures to eliminate
. poor designs or overzealous implementation:
1) There must be a demonstrated need for design measures to control a
specific problem.
1 1 92
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 5
2) The design must address the problem without creating others.
3) It must have the support of the neighbourhood as a whole and not be at
the request of a vocal few.
4) The design should slow traffic to reasonable legal limits.
5) Great care must be put into the design and number of measures so as not
to unreasonably interfere with road maintenance equipment or emergency
vehicles.
6) As traffic calming implementation can be very expensive, locations must be
prioritized to provide the greatest benefit.
7) Residents must be informed of all the costs and negative aspects of various traffic
calming devices before they are implemented. Often, the residents themselves
feel that the significant financial investment is not a good use of public funds.
8) If traffic calming measures are endorsed as a long term commitment, expenses
must be reduced by incorporating traffic calming as part of regularly planned
road reconstruction projects. Planning and Engineering Departments should
incorporate designs into street planning for new subdivisions or communities,
rather than be superimposed on existing streets at a later date.
11 93
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 6
3.6 Advantages Versus Disadvantages of Requested Speed Humps
Advantages:
- will force traffic to slow
- will reduce traffic volume
- will reduce police enforcement required
- speed humps are one ofthe least expensive devices
Disadvantages:
- may cause personal or property damage if a motorist drives above design speed
(open to litigation)
- will delay emergency vehicle response time (8-10 seconds per hump as per
Scarborough study)
- only effective over short distance; need 125 metre spacing
- may increase speeds beyond the "calmed area"
- costly as more and more are requested
- difficult to implement in times of budget restraint
- increased concern for emergency services if more are requested/implemented
- residents may complain about appearance and additional signing required
- may move traffic problems over to other streets
- may give children the impression that roads are safe play areas
- may interfere with snow plowing and require heavy salt applications.
- vehicle noise, braking, accelerating, loads shifting
- some residents have insisted traffic calming be removed, again increasing costs
- trucks and buses must cross the humps at slower speeds than cars to avoid damage
and shifted loads
1 1 94
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 7
3.7 Existing Test Locations - Pickering
Staff have inspected the speed humps in the Hamlet of Whitevale and at the Rougemount
Drive location and have spoken to a number of the residents. The residents' responses were
mixed, with some saying they were too extreme and dangerous while others felt they
needed more and higher humps. The humps spaced at distances of approximately 125
metres forced the motorist to slow to speeds of 25-30 km/hr in a traditional 50 km/hr speed
zone. Some traffic calming consultants recommend speed humps be placed every 125
metres apart to discourage increased speeds above 50 km/hr between humps. A distance of
40 - 60 metres between humps is required to maintain the low speed of 30 km/hr. Staff
agree they will slow traffic, but are concerned about the effect on emergency services if
such devices were used on a widespread basis.
3.8 Future Selection of a Clarington Test Location
Enniskillen, like many other rural hamlets and urban streets, expenences what many
consider speeding problems. Mr. Bilsky has offered to have a speed hump located directly
in front of his house, as well as two other locations in Enniskillen, as a test location. The
suggested guideline spacing of 125 metres would require a total of 16 speed humps, at a
cost of between $1,000 to $1,500 per hump, over this 2 km stretch of roadway. The annual
estimated maintenance cost for pavement marking, signing and asphalt repair is $100 per
year per hump.
Staff feel that the development of any future traffic calming policy should prioritize
requested locations based on a number of factors. This prioritization would favour
locations with high traffic volumes, speeds, pedestrian volumes and neighbourhood support.
The traffic volumes on Old Scugog Road in Enniskillen only average between 600-900
vehicles per day, with light pedestrian activity. Although vehicle speeds entering
Enniskillen are higher than desired, staff feel other possible locations in Bowmanville or
Courtice would benefit more residents.
11 95
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 8
Other requested traffic calming locations include:
HAMPTON
- Old Scugog Road
- Old Scugog Road just north of Regional Road 57
COURTICE
- Glenabbey Drive
- Robert Adams Drive
- Prestonvale Road
- Trolls Road
BOWMANVILLE - Waverley Road
- Mearns Avenue
- Scugog Street
To reduce costs, traffic calming devices should, where possible, be incorporated into
planned resurfacing, reconstruction or new development where no taxpayer funds are
required.
3.9 Until such time that other alternatives and funding are available, residents who are
concerned about the speeds in their neighbourhoods should continue to contact Durham
Regional Police for enforcement or contact the Public Works Department to borrow the
Radar Message Board as part of a neighbourhood speed watch effort.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 From the above, it is concluded that the Municipality should continue to monitor the
progress of traffic calming in other areas and review guidelines presently being prepared by
the Transportation Association of Canada (T AC), Canadian Institute of Transportation
Engineers (CITE), the Ontario Traffic Conference (OTC) and the Province.
11 96
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
PAGE 9
4. 2 That the Municipality not experiment with speed humps in Enniskillen or any other
location, but rather should wait until the transportation groups have adopted proper traffic
calming guidelines and the Municipality has established a complete policy.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by
~~
Stephen A. Vokes, P. Eng.,
Director of Public Works
~
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
SAV/RDB/ce
16/06/1998
Attachments (2)
Pc: Mike Bilsky
8250 Old Scugog Road
Enniskillen, ON
LOB UO
Lloyd Thomas
P.O. Box 28
Whitevale, ON
LOA IMO
1 i 97
11'--(\ /----- u(t'rtueC~lf-~-~ --~\~ll
I) (_ ~a1terGourtJ RE~~~~6ED I
\ ... -II <- HUMPS II
) \lerrydale I ~ ISkillen 1
L- .. "~r~v.e____J /Publi School I
I "-----1 .~/..
I I
I I
I
\" Regional Road 3 Centre J.. . _
r ---Il~\-=-- ~~~=--J up-r~ .-
11'\\ \ ~ . ~)
II \ \ ~ ~ I
il Ii ~
1 [I ~.
!!!.
;u
o
I ~
(Jl
....
._....._..._..~.
// '\ "li
IL I DRAWNBYJAM--]"A],':J""' 1998 I
-1 ~~*".Ro'dL .Jj~~-;~E~TNO.l . Ji
1 1 98
tv
w~Jt
s
Concession
C:IMAPINFOICLARIA TT ACHSIDARLIENN4W A Y. WOR
~R8d
" .....
T ~ '" .' I
.- .. ..c / " ~ ;\
SItV
._-~'.._.__..._._. .-"---.-.- ...... '.'---_.-.
Dear Jim
Apti123, 1998
This is Mike Bilsky from Enniskillen. I've enclosed the lastletter Iwrote just in case you did
not receive it.
My proposal is to ask for a test of the speed humps in Enniskillen. The purpose of these
humps is to calm traffic and help motorists make the decision to us 57 as the main tlu.ough road.
These two objec,tives were achieved in the hamlets of the municipality of Pickering. I'm proposing
.3 (only) test speed humps in Enniskillen. These speed humps can be removed if the test is a
failure. rni proposing these speed humps at'the following sites.
1. just north of Virtue Crt
2.. at my house 8250 Old Scugog Rd.
3.. just south of Potters lane
The last speed counter report was done in mid october. Statistically motorist speed more in
the summer yet we still had an average speed of over 78 KUd in a SO zone of the 85% of/he .:.ars
that passed my house.
The residents of Enniskillen , the following councillor from Pickering: 1"\'1arl.: Holland,
Doug Dickerson, David Pickles; plus Stephen Brake and Rick Johnson fi'om the puhlic.; works dep!
endorse the speed hump program.
Could you please look into the how Enniskillen is doing with UUt It;lIUt;si lUI Cl spt;t:d hump
project.
lvllKE Bli-SKY
263- 2434
1 i 99
ATTACHMENT NO.: 2
REPORT NO.: WD-41-98
.~
Dear Jim
April!, 1998
This is Mike BilskY' from Enniskillen. I thought a letter would be easier to COllUllUllicate with
you as we seem to be playing phone tag. .
About 3 months ago the public works dept was going to look into the speed hump program
that was endorsed by the municipality of Pickering.
Well Spl1ng is here and the traffic speed on old scugog road is increasing as is the norm.
Toronto is presently making the news with their zero tolerance to running red lights. j suppose it's..'
spring fever.
I have a few concerns; last week when I talked to Doug Dickerson the regional connceJlor
fi'om Pickering he said that if your municipality tums down this traftk ~alming uevil,;c. then th(;}'
should. try it as a one year test. When I talked last year to Steve volks he told me very frankly he
would either adopt this traffic cahning device and would not run it as a test
I would be honoured to place the first and perhaps the only speed hump right in front of my
house.
!\1y other concem is that the public works dept is not doing enough to solve this problem.
We could paint a solid line down the road to stop the passing that happens in town. We could
lower the speed limit around the school to 40 KL!\.f. We could place community alert signs to
remind the motorist that they are in town; this would help counter balance the visual op(;nness that
is a catalyst to speed.
The last speed counter report was done in mid october. Stati.;;tically motorist sreen more ill
the summer yet \ve still had an average speed of over 78 KL1\l in a 50 zOlle of the g 50 u uf the \.'-MS
that passed my house.
The residents of Enniskillen , the following councellor hom Pickering; Mark Holland,
Doug Dickerson, David Pickles; plus Stephen Brake and Rick Johnson from the publi.. works dep!
endorse the speed hump program.
Could you please look into the how EnniskiHcn is doing wilh our request for a speed hump
project.
110001