HomeMy WebLinkAboutEGD-031-13 Clarington REPORT
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: -"46-13 By-law#:
Report#: EGD-031-13 File#:
Subject: SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION AND WARRANT ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report EGD-031-13 be received; and
2. THAT Council endorse the Speed Hump Installation and Warrant Analysis.
Submitted by: r °Reviewed by:
A.S. Cannella, .E.T. Franklin Wu,
Director of Engineering Chief Administrative Officer
Services
ASC/LJB/dv/jb
September 3, 2013
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379
REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 The Municipality of Clarington Engineering Services Department is responsible
for ensuring that the Municipality's road network provides as safe a transportation
environment as possible to motorists, cyclists, individuals with mobility
challenges, and pedestrians. While the Municipality has a well established Road
Watch program, which the Engineering Services Department augments with the
Traffic Watch program, staff continue to receive complaints of speeding and other
poor driver behavior. Complaints are usually accompanied by requests for all-
way stop control, speed bumps or speed humps.
2.0 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL, SPEED BUMPS AND SPEED HUMPS
2.1 It is well documented that all-way stop control is not intended to reduce speeds.
The Ontario Traffic Manual (published by the Ministry of Transportation) states
"The purpose of a STOP sign is to clearly assign right-of-way between vehicles
approaching an intersection from different directions when traffic signals are not
warranted or not yet installed and it has been determined that a YIELD sign is
inadequate." Further, it states "STOP signs are not intended to be used as
speed control devices. Their usage should be limited to the control of right-of-
way conflicts," and "All-way stop controls should not be used under the following
conditions: as a speed control device [among others]."
2.2 Speed bumps are short in height and short in length (in the direction of travel)
and result in an abrupt vertical motion. Speed bumps are typically used in private
lanes and parking lots. They are not recommended for use on public roads, and
they are particularly disruptive to emergency vehicles and transit.
2.3 Speed humps are generally rounded or flat topped and are longer (in the
direction of travel) than speed bumps. The result is a more gentle vertical
transition to the travelling vehicle, and they are considered to be a potential traffic
calming device when used in appropriate applications (see Attachment 1).
There are definite advantages and disadvantages to the presence of speed
humps, and they are not recommended to be installed without thorough
consideration and public input.
Advantages are that speed humps:
• are generally effective in reducing speeds
• are "self-enforcing" potentially reducing police enforcement
• create a visual which discourages speeding.
Disadvantages, however, are that speed humps:
• result in longer emergency vehicle response time
• do not reduce speeds as much as some residents want
• can pose a danger to motorcyclists and bicyclists who could lose control of
their vehicle
• can result in increased speeds between and beyond the speed humps
REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 3
• divert traffic to other streets, creating volume and speed complaints from
those residents
• are considered by some to be unattractive with respect to the requisite
signage and pavement markings
• result in increased noise of vehicles decelerating and accelerating,
particularly in the presence of loose articles in open trucks or trailers
• can result in cars swerving in an attempt to avoid the hump. This is of
paw icular concern where there are ditches and where there are no
sidewalks
• can result in vehicle damage
• are more difficult to maintain by municipal staff during winter operations
• are costly (approximately $2,000.00-3,000.00 each including asphalt, line
painting, signage and installation)
• are often, subsequently, removed at the request of residents; thereby,
resulting in additional costs
3.0 DISCUSSION
3.1 The Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming (published by the
Transportation Association of Canada) identifies the speed hump as an
appropriate tool to reduce speeds in certain applications:
• urban cross-section (curb and gutter)
• local and collector streets
• posted speed limits 50 kph
• close to streets illuminated to Municipal standards for roadway lighting.
• on road grades <_ 5% (desirably)
3.2 The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), of which the Director of
Engineering Services is a member, is an international education and scientific
association of transportation professionals. ITE is a highly recognized association
for transportation expertise. Spacing of humps per ITE to obtain desired vehicle
speeds between humps are recommended as follows:
On local streets:
• 50 km/hr every 125m
• 45 km/hr every 100m
• 40 km/hr every 80m
• Every 125m to maintain 50 km/hr on collectors
3.3 While speed humps may be considered in certain applications, they are not
intended to be installed everywhere. They should only be considered where
there is a documented speed problem: not a perceived one. Traffic studies must
be completed and public and stakeholder input must be elicited.
REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 4
Most municipalities which consider the installation of speed humps have
developed a Speed Hump Warrant Analysis in the same manner that
municipalities use warrants to determine the appropriateness of traffic signals
and all-way stops. Clarington staff have developed a Speed Hump Warrant
Analysis for Council's consideration. The warrant is consistent with the principles
contained in approximately 10 speed hump warrant analysis which were
researched by Clarington staff. The warrant also follows the principles laid out in
the document entitled Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming
prepared by ITE and the Transportation Association of Canada. Meeting the
criteria of this warrant is a function of:
• road classification
• roadside environment
• posted speed
• results of speed studies taken over time
• annual average daily traffic (AADT)
• public support
• input from other stakeholders
In addition to the public, stakeholders in this matter include:
• emergency/fire services
• police services
• school bus companies
• transit services
• operations department
• cycling/motorcycle clubs
• waste management
3.4 Staff recommend that the Speed Hump Warrant checklist be used to determine
the appropriateness of installing speed humps (Attachment 2).
4.0 PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION
4.1 The following is the recommended process which will lead to the assessment of a
request to install speed humps on a Clarington road:
i) A petition must be received by the Municipality from area residents
requesting the installation signed by at least 2/3 of the residents on that
street.
ii) The Municipality must undertake a traffic and speed study to determine if a
speeding problem does exist.
iii) Municipal staff must confer with all departments, transportation agencies
and stakeholders which may be impacted.
iv) The Speed Hump Warrant checklist must be completed, and all warrants
in Part A must be met before the request can be further processed.
REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 5
v) The Municipality must consider area wide traffic-related impacts (e.g.
potential for infiltration through parallel streets). It is imperative that there
be a net benefit in terms of road safety throughout the immediate road
network in the event that speed humps are installed.
vi) The Municipality must conduct a Public Information Centre to present the
proposed design of the works and to receive public input.
vii) Staff will then make a recommendation to the Director of Engineering
Services with respect to the request, and, if recommended, the installation
can be ranked with other projects for consideration of inclusion in the
Municipal budget.
5.0 CONCURRENCE —The recommendations contained within this report have
been made in concurrence with the Director of Operations and our Director of
Emergency and Fire Services.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 The installation of speed humps could be recommended in certain applications to
reduce speeds on local and minor collector roads where a speeding problem
exists as evidenced by traffic studies and where it has been determined that a
speed reduction can be achieved without compromise to public safety and where
traffic-related problems are not transferred to other areas.
Staff recommend that Council endorse the use of the Speed Hump Installation
Warrant Analysis (Attachment 2) when considering the appropriateness of
installing speed humps on Clarington roads.
CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN
The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the
following priorities of the Strategic Plan:
_ Promoting economic development
_ Maintaining financial stability
_ Connecting Clarington
Promoting green initiatives
X Investing in infrastructure
_ Showcasing our community
Not in conformity with Strategic Plan
Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, Manager, Development Engineering & Traffic
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Speed Hump Detail
Attachment 2 - Speed Hump Warrant
� A
° NIGC r WARNING N
D ID�
—n E: °b
— o
1.0 w
z I i
LO SPEED HUMP SIGN W
2.0
D ®1.0 LHPU ED
P
kmlh
cu
7) 300X300mm TABS
m SPEED HUMP SIGN
m I- --�—�-1,0 SOLID WHITE REFLECTIVE
® A PAVEMENT MARKING TRIANGLES
(MATERIAL TO BE SPECIFIED
IN CONTRACT
� 8
—Q EE
GRIND OUT EXISTING ASPHALT ii5mm HL3 ASPHALT
m O PROVIDE A 400mm WIDE
3 STEP JOINT ON ALL SIDES SECTION A—A
rL0 (s0mm DEPTH)
co
c0 0,5—®I
0.225
m
m
c0 >
77e
p SECTION B—B
Q E
NOTES:
9. ALL SIGNS TO BE HIGH INTENSITY REFLECTIVE SHEETING ON GALVANIZED U—CHANNEL POSTS. -
CD 2. ADD THIRD PAVEMENT MARKING TRIANGLE ON EACH SIDE OF SPEED HUMP IF ON COLLECTOR ROAD.
a
3. EXACT LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION MUST PROVIDE SAFE CONVEYANCE TO VEHICLES,CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS.
E
e+ E
3 {
kl
Speed Hump Warrant
A) Requisites
❑ A petition has been received from area residents (representing at
least 2/3 of the property owners on the subject street) supporting
the installation of speed humps.
❑ The street is classified as (and operates as) local or collector.
❑ The street has an urban cross section with sidewalks on at least
one side of the street.
❑ The street is predominantly residential in nature.
❑ The posted speed is :5 50 KPH.
❑ The street is not a primary emergency response route (as identified
by fire, police, and EMS services).
❑ The roadway grade does not exceed 5%.
❑ Speed studies have been undertaken to support a claim of a
speeding problem.
❑ The 85th percentile speed is greater than 10 kph above the posted
speed.
❑ The street is not a public transit route.
All warrants in Part A) must be met in order for the request to proceed.
B) Other Considerations
❑ There is not a significant potential for traffic to divert to parallel
residential streets causing issues on the adjacent road network.
❑ There are pedestrian generators (park, school, church, community
centre) in the area.
❑ There are at least 750 cars per day on the local street or at least
2500 cars per day on the collector street.
❑ It has been determined that public safety will be enhanced by the
installation.
i