1 CITY OF LOMITA
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: City Council Item No. SCH 8a
FROM: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Carla Dillon, P.E., Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2023
SUBJECT: Discussion and Consideration of the Traffic Calming Toolkit
RECOMMENDATION
1) Receive and file the Traffic Calming Toolkit; 2) direct staff to implement recommendations for 262nd Street, Walnut Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue; and 3) direct staff to begin the formation of a Capital Improvement Project to make improvements on Eshelman Avenue to incorporate traffic calming measures.
BACKGROUND
The City retained a consultant, Kimley-Horn, to prepare a Traffic Calming Toolkit with the input of community members.
In July 2023, in conjunction with the Public Safety & Traffic Commission (PS&TC) meeting, a workshop was held to educate community members on traffic calming tools and receive input on perceived areas where vehicles may be speeding or other traffic issues are observed.
Based upon input from residents at the workshop, on-site field visits, and engineering traffic best practices, Kimley-Horn, prepared a Toolkit for staff use in future considerations. The intent of the Toolkit is to provide the Technical Traffic Advisory Committee (TTAC) additional options for addressing specific areas of concern. The tools are divided into 4 categories:
o Tier 1 - low-cost solutions that City staff can implement (reflective striping on sign posts, speed limit painted on road, etc.)
o Tier 2 - mid-level cost solutions that would require a contractor to implement 2 o Tier 3 - higher cost solutions that would require engineering design then contractor implementation
o Tier 4 - highest level cost and complexity for implementation (vertical displacement such as road closures, traffic circles, speed tables (form of speed bump))
Based upon the Traffic Calming workshop in July, the consultant looked at locations of concern in the City and provided suggestions for Tier 1 solutions for Pennsylvania, 262nd, Walnut, and Tier 2/3 solutions for Eshelman.
On September 20, Kimley-Horn presented the draft toolkit and suggestions for traffic calming tools for specific locations at the PS&TC meeting. The commission heard comments and received and filed the presentation.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve staff’s recommendation.
2. Provide alternate direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
For staff to implement the Tier 1 recommendations for 262nd Street, Walnut Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue, the cost will be approximately $3,500. This can be funded through accounts 207-610-5345 and 205-610-5705.
To complete a capital project for Eshelman Avenue with the suggested elements, the initial rough cost estimate is $620,000 for design and construction as an independent project. If the Council supports proceeding with the project, staff will bring the project to Council at each project stage (award of design services and construction bidding) to appropriate funds. A funding source for this project will need to be determined separately at that time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Traffic Calming Toolkit Report
3 Reviewed by: Approved by:
Gary Y. Sugano Ryan Smoot
Assistant City Manager City Manager
Prepared by:
__ ____________
Carla Dillon, PE
Public Works Director
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
Final Report
September 2023
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No 1
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...............................................................................................................2 What is a Traffic Calming Toolkit?.......................................................................................... 2 Project Goals ......................................................................................................................... 2 Approach ............................................................................................................................... 2 Background Studies and Plans.............................................................................................. 2 Public Engagement.................................................................................................................3 Understanding the Manual.....................................................................................................4 Traffic Calming Process..............................................................................................5 Project Initiation .................................................................................................................... 5 Project Identification ............................................................................................................. 5 Traffic Calming Toolkit................................................................................................6 Tool Selection.............................................................................................................7 Tool Eligibility & Application ...................................................................................................7 Tool Effectiveness.................................................................................................................8 Speed .................................................................................................................................... 8 Volumes................................................................................................................................. 8 Collisions............................................................................................................................... 8 Pedestrian Safety .................................................................................................................. 8 Bicycle Safety ........................................................................................................................ 8 Tool Impacts .........................................................................................................................9 Emergency Vehicles.............................................................................................................. 9 Impacts on Noise................................................................................................................... 9 On-Street Parking .................................................................................................................. 9 Cost........................................................................................................................................ 9 Underground Utilities............................................................................................................ 9 Case Study Locations.......................................................................................................... 40 Appendix 1..........................................................................................................................51 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
2 INTRODUCTION
What is a Traffic Calming Toolkit?
Traffic calming refers to the use of traffic control strategies to reduce the negative impacts of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior to reduce undesirable driving practices, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. The City of Lomita’s Traffic Calming Toolkit provides a succinct yet comprehensive toolkit of solutions that the City can use to respond to requests concerning speeds, cut-through traffic, and other perceived localized traffic issues. The toolkit is intended to provide realistic and flexible solutions that are context-appropriate and improve quality of life for everyone using the City’s streets.
Project Goals
The Traffic Calming Toolkit’s key goals include using this toolkit of traffic calming measures, where appropriate, to:
) Goal #1: Reduce vehicle speeds
) Goal #2: Reduce excess traffic volumes and cut-through traffic on local residential streets ) Goal #3: Improve neighborhood quality of life
Approach
Traffic Calming typically uses a “3 E’s” approach – Education, Enforcement, and Engineering – when considering possible solutions for improved traffic safety.
Background Studies and Plans
Guidance on the Traffic Calming Toolkit process and solutions was provided through a variety of existing standards, programs, and policies. Literature and regulatory framework reviews of guidance documents and City plans were conducted to understand industry standards and policy behind the traffic calming measures described in this report.
Best practices from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) were included in this toolkit.
Literature Review
Guidance documents and traffic calming methods were reviewed to document current best practices for traffic calming. While developing the Toolkit, the implementation criteria and the effectiveness of each traffic calming measure were based on the following documents:
) California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) ) Traffic Calming Guidance Interim Memo (Caltrans)
) Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO)
) Traffic Calming ePrimer (FHWA)
) Proven Safety Countermeasures (FHWA)
Educational programming alerts people to ways they can help ease traffic problems – for example, by reducing their speed, choosing to walk or bike instead of drive, and maintaining awareness of their surroundings.
EDUCATION
Enforcement tools enlist the help of local law enforcement to focus efforts on specific streets to increase community awareness of speeding problems. ENFORCEMENT Engineering tools include a variety of traffic calming devices that redesign the street to control traffic volumes, decrease traffic speeds, create safer walking and bicycling conditions, and maintain or improve an attractive streetscape.
ENGINEERING
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
3 Regulatory Framework Review
City plans and programs relevant to the traffic calming toolkit were also reviewed for consistency and to determine potential impacts to the implementation of the traffic calming solutions proposed in this toolkit. The following City documents and policies were reviewed:
) City of Lomita’s General Plan
) City of Lomita’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
) City of Lomita’s Downtown Lomita Design Manual
) City of Lomita’s Municipal Code
) California Vehicle Code
Public Engagement
The traffic calming toolkit is public-oriented by nature and seeks to involve the public at multiple stages throughout the traffic calming process. The public was solicited to participate in two community workshops in conjunction with the City’s Public Safety and Traffic Commission in order to understand the public’s traffic concerns and gather feedback on the toolkit.
Community Workshop #1
The first community workshop took place in the City of Lomita on Wednesday, July 19th, 2023. The City hosted the workshop to present the project to members of the public and solicit feedback on the traffic concerns throughout the City. The workshop was attended by over 15 members of the public as well as several public officials.
At the start of the workshop, City of Lomita staff and project team members gave a presentation to the group that discussed the goals of the project and the potential traffic calming solutions. Following the presentation, the workshop participants were invited to participate in two map activities. The first activity reinforced the education around traffic calming measures and allowed residents to choose which of the traffic calming solutions they would like to see implemented on a generic map that reflected the City’s streets. The workshop participants were also able to ask questions of the project team and provide their input on the project process.
The second activity allowed the residents to identify their concerns at specific locations throughout the City using colored labels. Concerns related to speeding, cut-through traffic, pedestrian safety, and sight distance/visibility were used to develop the six (6) case study locations and their respective traffic calming solutions. Existing conditions and concerns at the case study locations are described in the case studies section of this report, along with the proposed site-specific traffic calming solutions that follow a tiered approach.
Residents identifying locations in need of traffic calming during the workshop.
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
4 Community Workshop #2
The second community workshop took place in the City of Lomita on September, 20, 2023. The project team presented the draft traffic calming report and case study locations with the proposed improvements.
Understanding the Manual
The Traffic Calming Toolkit was developed as a guide for City of Lomita staff. This report presents a toolkit of traffic calming measures and a summary of improvements at specific locations within the City. It is intended for staff to use the toolkit and measures outlined in this report for identifying and implementing traffic calming solutions in response to public requests. The measures listed in the toolkit intend to address potential traffic problems based on site conditions, tool effectiveness, and other criteria. The report is organized as follows. ) Traffic Calming Process - This section outlines the process through which residents can submit requests for traffic calming solutions and how City staff will evaluate the location(s) in question and select eligible traffic calming tools, and prioritize traffic calming projects. ) Toolkit - This section provides an overview of the specific tools and suites of tools that the City can use to address traffic calming issues.
) Tool Selection - This section provides details on how traffic calming tools are screened for eligibility, evaluated for their effectiveness, potential impacts, and costs.
) Case Study Locations - This section provides details on the case study locations within the City and the proposed site-specific traffic calming solutions, following an incremental tiered approach.
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
5 TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS
Project Initiation
The traffic calming process may be utilized if the City’s Technical Traffic Advisory Committee (TTAC) finds the toolkit solutions appropriate. The process includes an online request that provides the following information in a standardized online Traffic Investigation Request form: a description of the traffic issues at hand, the impacted location, and the name and contact information for the person or organization submitting the request.
Traffic Investigation Request forms can be submitted by any private citizen or community, neighborhood, or homeowners’ organization or association. Request forms may be completed and submitted online via the City’s website. In addition to requests made by the public, the traffic calming process may be initiated separately through the identification by City staff of a candidate location or locations.
Once a request form is received and it is determined that enough information is provided, the City’s TTAC will review the candidate location and inform the requester of the evaluation of the matter and action taken. If the matter will be presented at Public Safety and Traffic Commission or City Council, the requester shall be notified.
It should be noted that enforcement and education tools should be exhausted prior to identifying engineering solutions.
Targeted enforcement or traffic laws seeks to increase public awareness of local speed limits and traffic regulations through increased patrols and ticketing of drivers in violation. The level of enforcement that is conducted is dependent on the number of officers that are available and the level of funding available for efforts beyond what is budgeted and considered standard.
Neighborhood traffic education programming seeks to increase public awareness of local speed limits and traffic regulations while also allowing for the public to work with the City to identify and discuss safety issues and residents’ concerns. Education programs may include posting signage or banners in local neighborhoods, distributing flyers or personalized letters to area residents and businesses, hosting public meetings and workshops, and coordinating with local law enforcement, schools, and other organizations.
Project Identification
After determining that traffic calming solutions are appropriate for the impacted location, City staff, in coordination with their Los Angeles County Public Advisor, will conduct a preliminary site assessment to develop an understanding of the site’s local context and review traffic and safety data that may already be available for the location.
After conducting a preliminary site assessment and potentially meeting with stakeholders, City staff will determine what degree of traffic calming solutions will be pursued. The Traffic Calming Toolkit groups traffic calming tools into Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, or Tier 4 solutions. Additional detail regarding the tools within each tier are available in the Traffic Calming Toolkit section.
) Tier 1 solutions consist of tools that are typically low-cost and do not require additional design, making them quicker and easier to implement. Although some tools do require justification such as meeting the recommended criteria and the City Council approval, Tier 1 tools consist of improvements such as simple striping, signage, and pavement marking improvements.
) Tier 2 solutions consist of tools that tend to be slightly costlier and require some design. Tier 2 tools typically consist of improvements that involve constructing roadway features such as crossing improvements and striping treatments such as centerline and edgeline striping. ) Tier 3 solutions consist of tools that tend to be costlier and require more involved study, design, outreach, and construction processes. Tier 3 tools typically consist of improvements that involve constructing raised features on the roadway such as curb extensions, horizontal deflections such as chicanes or median islands, and neighborhood access control.
) Tier 4 solutions consist of tools that tend to be the costliest and require extensive study, design, and construction processes. Tier 4 tools typically consist of improvements that are most invasive such as full road closures and vertical deflections, which include speed kidneys, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, traffic circles, and roundabouts.
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
6 TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
This section presents the typical traffic calming tools and the different levels of traffic calming measures used by the City.
Tier 1 Tools
Tier 1 solutions consist of tools that are typically low-cost and don’t require extensive design, making them quicker and easier to implement. Although some tools do require justification such as meeting the recommended criteria and City Council approval, Tier 1 tools consist of improvements such as:
) Signage
) Speed Legends
) Reflective Sign Post Panel
) Signed Turn Restrictions
) Rumble Strips
Tier 2 Tools
Tier 2 solutions consist of tools that tend to be slightly costlier and require some construction processes. Tier 2 tools typically consist of improvements that involve constructing roadway features such as crossing improvements and striping treatments such as:
) Centerline and Edgeline Striping
) Speed Radar Feedback Sign
Tier 3 Tools
Tier 3 solutions consist of tools that tend to be costlier and require more involved study, design, outreach, and construction processes. Tier 3 tools consist of improvements such as:
) Crossing Improvements
) Curb Extensions
Tier 4 Tools
Tier 4 solutions consist of tools that tend to be the costliest and require involved outreach and environmental clearance, design, and construction processes. Tier 4 tools consist of improvements such as:
) Vertical Deflections
⤷ Roundabout
⤷ Speed Kidneys
⤷ Speed Table
⤷ Traffic Circle
⤷ Raised Crosswalk
) Neighborhood Access Control
⤷ Full Road Closure
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
7 TOOL SELECTION
This section provides details on how traffic calming tools are screened for eligibility, evaluated for their effectiveness, potential impacts, and costs.
Tool Eligibility & Application
To determine which traffic calming measures are eligible or appropriate for a particular location, the following aspects should be reviewed.
Roadway Functional Class
Certain traffic calming measures are only applicable on certain roadway functional classifications. Roadway classes can generally be categorized as:
) Major Highways (4 lanes, carries traffic between and across the City) ⤷ Pacific Coast Highway, Lomita Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard, Western Avenue, and Palos Verdes Drive North
) Secondary Highways (2 lanes, carries traffic across the City, as well as shorter distance local intra-city traffic movement)
⤷ Narbonne Avenue
) Collector (2 lanes, carries traffic from local streets to arterials) ⤷ 250th Street, 255th Street, 262nd Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, Eshelman Avenue, Walnut Avenue, Ebony Street, and Narbonne Avenue north of Lomita Boulevard
) Local streets (2 lanes, carries local neighborhood traffic) Location
Certain traffic calming measures are only applicable at either intersections or along roadway segments.
Posted Speed Limit
Certain traffic calming measures are only appropriate along streets with certain speed limits.
Volume
Certain traffic calming measures are only appropriate on streets with lower volumes.
Cut-Through Traffic
The presence of non-local, cut through traffic can be addressed by certain traffic calming measures.
Other Site Considerations
Depending on how the roadway is used, certain traffic calming measures may not be appropriate. Aspects taken into consideration are whether the roadway contains dedicated bicycle facilities, is a primary transit route, is used extensively by emergency vehicles, whether trucks must utilize the roadway to access commercial and industrial facilities, or whether the street has a significant grade.
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
8 TOOL EFFECTIVENESS
A tool’s effectiveness at addressing the traffic calming issue on a numerical scale from 1 – 4. 1 – Low Effectiveness
2 – Medium Effectiveness
3 – High Effectiveness
4 – Very High Effectiveness
Speed
A tool’s effectiveness at reducing vehicular speed on a numerical scale from 1 – 4. One indicates the tool has a low effectiveness at reducing vehicular volume and four indicates the tool has a high effectiveness at reducing vehicular volume.
Volumes
A tool’s effectiveness at reducing vehicular volumes on a numerical scale from 1 – 4. One indicates the tool has a low effectiveness at reducing vehicular volume and four indicates the tool has a high effectiveness at reducing vehicular volume.
Cut-Through Traffic
A tool’s effectiveness at reducing cut-through traffic on a numerical scale from 1 – 4. One indicates the tool has a low effectiveness at reducing cut-through traffic and four indicates the tool has a high effectiveness at reducing cutthrough traffic.
Collisions
A tool’s effectiveness at reducing collisions on a numerical scale from 1 – 4. One indicates the tool has a low effectiveness at reducing collisions and four indicates the tool has a high effectiveness at reducing collisions Pedestrian Safety
A tool’s effecitveness at increasing pedesstrian safety on a numerical scale from 1 – 4. One indicates the tool has a low effectiveness at increasing pedestrian safety and four indicates the tool has a high effectiveness at increasing pedestrian safety.
Bicycle Safety
A tool’s effectiveness at increasing bicycle safety on a numerical scale from 1 – 4. One indicates the tool has a low effectiveness at increasing bicycle safety and four indicates the tool has a high effectiveness at increasing bicycle safety.
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
9 TOOL IMPACTS
Emergency Vehicles
A tool’s impact on increasing an emergency vehicle’s response time and/or route as a result of installing the traffic calming mesasure.
No Impact
Impacts
Impacts on Noise
A tool’s impact on increasing the amount of ambient noise as a result of installing the traffic calming measure.
No Impact
Increases Noise
Decreases Noise
On-Street Parking
A tool’s imapct on decreasing the amount of on-street parking as a result of installing the traffic calming measure.
No Impact
Impacts
Cost
A tool’s cost for installation to the City.
$ – Less than $2,000
$$ – $2,000 – $19,999
$$$ – $20,000 – $50,000
$$$$ – Greater than $50,000
Underground Utilities
A tool’s impact on underground utilties creating conflicts and potential relocations.
No Impact
Impacts
In the following pages, each traffic calming measure is discussed in detail, including the advantages and disadvantages, cost, application, and effectiveness. The application section discusses where the potential traffic calming measures are appropriate to help determine if the measure can be implemented at a particular location. The scorecard section indicates the effectiveness of the potential traffic calming measure on reducing speed, reducing traffic volumes, reducing cut-through traffic, and increasing bicycle and pedestrian safety on a numerical scale. The information was sourced from the documents identified in the Literature Review section of this report.
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
1 TIER # TITLE: SUBHEAD
Application Speed Legends
Roadway Functional Class Major Highway – Secondary Highway – Collector – Local Location Segment
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed
Volume Any Volume
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate
Transit Route Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate
Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate
Grade Any Slope
Advantages:
• Does not affect emergency vehicles
• Low cost; quick and easy to implement
Disadvantages:
• Less effective in reducing speed than other tools
• Requires regular maintenance - consider use of
materials with higher retroreflectivity and durability
ratings to reduce maintenance costs
Cost:
• $150-$300 per legend
Design Guidance:
• CAMUTCD - Section 3B.20
Criteria:
• Recommend to install along segments where the
85th percentile speed exceeds the posted limit by
more than 5 mph and/or a segment with a history of
speed related collisions.
Effectiveness:
• Studies have found speed limit pavement legends
can reduce 85th percentile speeds by 1 mph (-1
percent) on rural, main roadways.*
DESCRIPTION
Speed legends are a series of painted numerals on the roadway that indicate the legal speed limit in miles per hour to catch driver attention, influencing them to reduce vehicle speed and exercise caution. Typically placed near speed limit signs, they are useful in reinforcing speed limits where roadway conditions, such as functional class or adjacent land uses, change. Speed legends can also accompany other messages or pavement markings to indicate additional information such as sudden sharp curves, approaching stop signs, and school zones.
TIER 1 STRIPING: SPEED LEGENDS
* FHWA, Factors Influencing Operating Speeds and Safety on Rural and Suburban Roads (2015) Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
10 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
2 TIER # TITLE: SUBHEAD
Scorecard Speed Legends
Effectiveness
25 Speed 2
Volumes 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1
Collisions 2
Pedestrian Safety 2
Bicycle Safety 2
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Example of speed legends in the center of a lane Example of speed legends in a turning lane TIER 1 STRIPING: SPEED LEGENDS
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
11 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
3 TIER # TITLE: SUBHEAD
Application Signage Reflective Sign Post Panel
Roadway Functional Class Major Highway – Secondary
Highway – Collector – Local
Major Highway – Secondary
Highway – Collector – Local
Location Segment – Intersection Segment – Intersection
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed Any Speed
Volume Any Volume Any Volume
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate Appropriate
Transit Route Appropriate Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate Appropriate Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate Appropriate
Grade Any Slope Any Slope
Advantages:
• Supports education and enforcement efforts
• Does not slow emergency vehicles
• Low cost; quick and easy to implement
• Increased safety and visibility at night
Disadvantages:
• Signage alone does not guarantee responsible
driver behavior
• May be subject to vandalism or theft
• Drivers may become desensitized over time,
reducing long-term effectiveness
Cost:
• $200 per sign
• $50 per reflective panel
Design Guidance:
• CAMUTCD - Chapter 2
• Speed limit signs shall be located at the points of
change from one speed limit to another.
• Additional Speed Limit signs shall be installed
beyond major intersections and at other locations
where it is necessary to remind road users of the
speed limit that is applicable.
• Additional speed limit signs may be installed
adjacent to speed legends or beyond minor
intersections.
Criteria:
• Recommend to install additional speed limit signs
where the 85th percentile speed exceeds the
posted limit by more than 5 mph and/or a segment
with a history of speed related collisions.
DESCRIPTION
In a traffic calming context, signage is typically used to remind drivers of roadway speed limits, critical safety considerations, and the rules of the road. Used in a clear and consistent manner, signage can help support traffic safety educational and enforcement efforts undertaken by the City. Regulatory speed limit signage (CAMUTCD R2-1) notifies drivers of the legal roadway speed limit. Reflective sign post panels increase sign post visibility and safety. Reflective panels provide an extra layer of visibility for important signs such as stop or yield signs.
TIER 1 SIGNAGE: SIGNAGE AND REFLECTIVE SIGN POST PANEL
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
12 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
4 Scorecard Signage Reflective Sign
Post Panel
Effectiveness
25 Speed 2 1
Volumes 1 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1 1
Collisions 2 2
Pedestrian Safety 2 1
Bicycle Safety 2 1
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
TIER 1 SIGNAGE: SIGNAGE AND REFLECTIVE SIGN POST PANEL
Example of a stop sign with a red reflective post panel Example of a yield to bicyclists sign Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
13 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
5 Advantages:
• Limits cut-through traffic
• May improve intersection safety by reducing confict
points
• Reduces noise pollution in immediate vicinity
Disadvantages:
• Potential for disruptiuon to local residents with road diversions causing increased travel time
Cost:
• $200 per sign
Design Guidance:
• CAMUTCD - Section 2B.18
Criteria:
• An origin-destination study demonstrates at least
25% of the facility’s traffic volume is non-local
traffic. An origin-destination study uses vehicle’s
license plates along with timestamps at each end
of a segment to determine if a vehicle is local or
non-local.
• A through circulation and diversion study is
required before installation.
DESCRIPTION
Neighborhood access control consist of a suite of tools that divert traffic away from select neighborhood streets, forcing drivers to use alternate routes. Signed turn restrictions warn drivers that access to certain streets is prohibited without designing and installing costly infrastructure.
TIER 1 NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS CONTROL: SIGNED TURN RESTRICTIONS Application Signed Turn Restrictions
Roadway Functional Class Collector – Local
Location Intersection
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed
Volume Any Volume
Cut-Through Traffic > 25% non-local
Bike Lane Appropriate
Transit Route Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate
Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate
Grade Any Slope
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
14 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
6 Example of signed turn restrictions
TIER 1 NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS CONTROL: SIGNED TURN RESTRICTIONS Example of signed turn restrictions
Scorecard Signed Turn Restrictions
Effectiveness
25 Speed 1
Volumes 3
Cut-Through Traffic 3
Collisions 2
Pedestrian Safety 2
Bicycle Safety 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
15 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
7 TIER 1
Advantages:
• Increases driver awareness
Disadvantages:
• Generates noise that can be an issue in residential areas Cost:
• $2.00 per linear foot
Design Standard:
• 3J.02
DESCRIPTION
Transverse rumble strips are a series of striped grooves in the roadway that provide a tactile and audible warning for drivers approaching a road feature. Transverse rumble strips are placed in the travel lane perpendicular to the direction of travel and are typically located on approaches to intersections, toll plazas, and horizontal curves.
STRIPING: TRANSVERSE RUMBLE STRIPS
Application Transverse Rumble Strips
Roadway Functional Class Major Highway – Secondary Highway – Collector Location Segment
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed
Volume Any Volume
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate with Conditions
Transit Route Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate
Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate
Grade Any Slope
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
16 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
8 TIER 1
Example of Transverse Rumble Strip on Road Example of Transverse Rumble Strip in Shoulder and Centerline STRIPING: TRANSVERSE RUMBLE STRIPS
Scorecard Transverse Rumble Strips
Effectiveness
25 Speed 2
Volumes 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1
Collisions 2
Pedestrian Safety 2
Bicycle Safety 1
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
17 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
9 DESCRIPTION
Roadway striping can be used as a traffic calming measure to narrow travel lane widths and create roadways that more effectively delineate space for various uses. Striping can be used to delineate centerlines, edge lines, parking lanes, and bicycle lanes where previous striping is not present or where the street can be restriped to create a new roadway configuration. The added constraints can reduce speeds by influencing drivers to exercise caution and stay within the designated travel lane(s).
Advantages:
• Can be used to improve access and comfort for
vulnerable road users
• Does not slow emergency vehicles
• Low cost; quick and easy to implement
• Can increase caution and reduce speeds
Disadvantages:
• Requires regular maintenance - consider use of
materials with higher retroreflectivity and durability
ratings to reduce maintenance costs
• Less effective in reducing speed than other tools
Cost:
• $1 per linear foot (LF)
Design Guidance:
• CAMUTCD - Section 3B.01 & 3B.06
• Center line markings shall be placed on all paved
urban arterials and collectors that have a traveled
way of 20 feet or more in width and an ADT of
6,000 vehicles per day or greater. (CA MUTCD
Section 3B.01)
• Center line markingsshall be placed on all paved
two-way streets or highways that have three or
more lanes for moving motor vehicle traffic. (CA
MUTCD Section 3B.01)
• Centerline may be placed on collectors and local
streets so long as the resulting lane width is at least 12 feet.
• The edge line should be placed 2 inch from the
edge of traveled way, approximately 12 feet from
the lane line or centerline. (CA MUTCD Section
3B.06)
• Edgeline markings may be placed on streets and
highways with or without centerline markings.
Criteria:
• Recommend to install centerline and/or edgeline
striping along segments where the 85th percentile
speed exceeds the posted limit by more than 5
mph.
• Recommend to install centerline striping along
segments with a history of head-on or speed
related collisions.
• Recommend to install edgeline striping along
segments with a history of sideswipe collisions
with parked vehicles or speed related collisions.
Effectiveness:
• Studies have found striping can reduce vehicle
speeds by 1 mph - 7 mph.*
TIER 2 STRIPING: CENTERLINE AND EDGELINE STRIPING
Application Centerline Edgeline Striping
Roadway Functional Class Major Highway – Secondary
Highway – Collector – Local
Major Highway – Secondary
Highway – Collector – Local
Location Segment Segment
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed Any Speed
Volume ADT >3,000 vpd ADT >3,000 vpd
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate Appropriate
Transit Route Appropriate Appropriate Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
18 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
10 Example of edge line striping Example of edge line striping for on street parking TIER 2 STRIPING: CENTERLINE AND EDGELINE STRIPING
Scorecard Centerline Edgeline
Striping
Effectiveness
25 Speed 2 2
Volumes 1 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1 1
Collisions 2 2
Pedestrian Safety 1 1
Bicycle Safety 2 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate Appropriate Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate Appropriate
Grade Any Slope Any Slope
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
19 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
11 Advantages:
• Speed feedback signs have demonstrated
effectiveness in speed reduction
• Does not slow emergency vehicles
• Low cost, quick and easy to implement
Disadvantages:
• Signage alone does not guarantee responsible
driver behavior
• Drivers may become desensitized over time,
reducing long-term effectiveness
• Speed reporting can be replaced by instructions to
slow down in cases of excessive speed.
Cost:
• $10,000 per speed radar feedback sign
Design Guidance:
• CAMUTCD - Section 2B.13
Criteria:
• Recommend to install temporary or permanent
speed radar feedback signs where the 85th
percentile speed exceeds the posted limit by more
than 5 mph and/or a segment with a history of
speed related collisions.
Effectiveness:
• Studies have found that striping can reduce vehicle
speeds by 2 mph - 7 mph.*
DESCRIPTION
Electronic speed radar feedback signs utilize radar technology to measure an approaching vehicle’s speed and display it on a screen that is adjacent to the vehicle speed limit, alerting drivers to their current speed and helping to monitor excessive speeding.
Speed feedback signs can also be made portable if mounted on a trailer with access to a power source.
TIER 2 SIGNAGE: SPEED RADAR FEEDBACK SIGN
Application Speed Radar Feedback Sign
Roadway Functional Class Major Highway – Secondary Highway – Collector Location Segment
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed
Volume Any Volume
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate
Transit Route Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate
Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate
Grade Any Slope
* FHWA, Factors Influencing Operating Speeds and Safety on Rural and Suburban Roads (2015) Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
20 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
12 Example of electronic speed radar feedback sign Example of electronic speed radar feedback sign caption TIER 2 SIGNAGE: SPEED RADAR FEEDBACK SIGN
Scorecard Speed Radar Feedback Sign
Effectiveness
25 Speed 3
Volumes 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1
Collisions 1
Pedestrian Safety 1
Bicycle Safety 1
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
21 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
13 DESCRIPTION
Pedestrian crossing improvements include a suite of tools to improve pedestrian safety and comfort. High-visibility crosswalks use bold striping patterns to help improve driver awareness and increase visibility of a pedestrian crossing. High-visibility crosswalks can include different types such as continental or ladder crosswalks.
Advantages:
• Increases driver awareness of the pedestrian
crossing
• Reduces pedestrian crossings at unmarked
locations
• Easy to implement
Disadvantages:
• High-visibility crosswalks require regular
maintenance
• Consider use of materials with higher
retroreflectivity and durability to reduce
maintenance costs
Cost:
• $3,000 per crosswalk
Design Guidance:
• CAMUTCD - Section 3B.18
Criteria:
• Recommend converting an existing marked
crosswalk to a high visibility crosswalk if the
crosswalk is adjacent to a school, recreational
facility, or other pedestrian generators.
• Recommend converting an existing marked
crosswalk to a high visibility crosswalk if there is a
history of pedestrian related collisions.
• New marked crosswalks at a location away from
a traffic control signal or an approach controlled
by a STOP or YIELD sign without other measures
designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing
distances, and provide active warning of pedestrian
presence is discouraged.
TIER 2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS: HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSS WALK Application High-Visibility Cross Walk
Roadway Functional Class Major Highway – Secondary Highway – Collector – Local Location Segment – Intersection
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed
Volume Any Volume
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate
Transit Route Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate
Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate
Grade < 5%
Continental Ladder
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
22 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
14 Example of a high visibility continental crosswalk Example of a high visibility ladder crosswalk TIER 2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS: HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSS WALK Scorecard High-Visibility Cross Walk
Effectiveness
25 Speed 2
Volumes 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1
Collisions 3
Pedestrian Safety 4
Bicycle Safety 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
23 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
15 DESCRIPTION
Crossing improvements include a suite of tools to improve pedestrian safety and comfort. Curb extensions, often called bulbouts when used at intersections, create additional sidewalk space for pedestrians while influencing drivers to reduce their speeds via reductions in lane width and increased curb radii. Pedestrian refuge islands provide a safe space within a roadway median for pedestrians to focus on one direction of oncoming traffic at a time and wait for a safe gap to cross the street. Roadway reconfiguration reconfigures the roadway by reducing the number of travel lanes along roadways with more than one lane in each direction and repurposing the space through the addition of curbside parking, medians with left-turn pockets or center two-way left-turn lanes, and/or dedicated bicycle facilities. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) flash LED lights to enhance pedestrian conspicuity and increase driver awareness at uncontrolled marked crosswalks.
Advantages:
For Bulbouts, Pedestrian Reguge Island, & RRFBs: For Roadway Reconfiguration:
• Increases driver awareness of the pedestrian crossing • Reduces pedestrian crossings at unmarked locations
• Reduce vehicle speed and vehicle-pedestrian collisions • Opportunity to increase aesthetic appeal
• Demonstrated effectiveness in reducing vehicle speed
and collisions/collision severity
• May facilitate modal shift if used to install dedicated bicycle facilities
• Typically moderate cost to implement
Disadvantages:
For Bulbouts, Pedestrian Reguge Island, & RRFBs: For Roadway Reconfiguration:
• Can be costly to implement
• Bulbouts may complicate drainage design
• Bulbouts may interrupt bicycle facilities and/or reduce road space for bicyclists
• Refuge islands may cause pedestrian crossing time to
increase waiting for gap in traffic
• Bulbouts may reduce on-street parking
• Bulbouts may impact right-turning emergency vehicles, buses, and trucks
• Reduces vehicle capacity of the roadway, potentially
increasing congestion
• May increase vehicle traffic and congestion on alternate parallel roadways
• Increased congestion may slow emergency vehicles and
transit
• Requires lengthy study and public engagement process
prior to implementation
Cost:
• $25,000-$50,000 Curb Extension (Bulbout)
• Roadway Reconfiguration costs vary based on
configuration changes
• $20,000-$40,000 per Pedestrian Refuge Island
• $25,000-$35,000 per Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Design Guidance:
• CAMUTCD, FHWA Guidelines
Criteria
• RRFBs are recommended at mid-block locations based on Table 1 of FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations found in Appendix 1.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS: CURB EXTENSIONS (BULBOUTS), PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND, ROADWAY
RECONFIGURATION, AND RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS (RRFBS) Application Curb Extensions
(Bulbouts)
Pedestrian
Refuge Island
Roadway
Reconfiguration
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
Roadway Functional
Class
Major Highway – Secondary
Highway – Collector – Local
Major Highway – Secondary
Highway – Collector
Major Highway – Secondary
Highway – Collector
Secondary Highway –
Collector – Local
Location Segment – Intersection Segment – Intersection Segment Segment Posted Speed Limit Any Speed <= 35 mph >= 35mph <= 40 mph Volume Any Volume ADT > 9,000 vpd ADT < 20,000 vpd Any Volume Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount Any Amount Any Amount Any Amount Bike Lane Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Transit Route Appropriate with Conditions Appropriate Appropriate with Conditions Appropriate Commercial/Industrial
Access Route Appropriate with Conditions Not Appropriate Appropriate with Conditions Appropriate TIER 3
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
24 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
16 Example of a curb extension (bulbout) at a crossing Example of a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at a crossing
Scorecard Curb Extensions
(Bulbouts)
Pedestrian Refuge
Island
Roadway
Reconfiguration
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
Effectiveness
25 Speed 3 2 3 2
Volumes 1 1 2 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1 1 2 1
Collisions 2 2 3 3
Pedestrian Safety 4 3 2 4
Bicycle Safety 2 2 3 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS: CURB EXTENSIONS (BULBOUTS), PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND, ROADWAY RECONFIGURATION, AND RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS (RRFBS) TIER 3 Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Emergency Vehicle
Route Appropriate with Conditions Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Grade < 5% < 5% Any Slope Any Slope
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
25 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
17 HORIZONTAL DEFLECTIONS: LATERAL SHIFT, CHICANES, TWO-LANE CHOKER, ONE-LANE CHOKER, AND MEDIANS/
PARTIAL MEDIANS
Advantages:
• Demonstrated effectiveness in reducing speeds
• Potential to reduce traffic volumes and
cut-through traffic
• Potential to improve pedestrian safety by reducing
crossing distance
• Opportunity to increase aesthetic appeal
Disadvantages:
• May inadvertently divert traffic onto adjacent streets • In the absence of oncoming traffic, drivers may cross centerline to avoid reducing speed
• Consideration must be taken to accommodate bike
facilities
• May slow emergency vehicles
• May complicate drainage design
• May reduce on-street parking
• Typically moderate to high cost
Cost:
• $8,000-$20,000 per Lateral Shift
• $10,000-$30,000 per Chicane
• $15,000-$30,000 per One-Lane and Two-Lane Chokers
• $20,000-$50,000 per medians/partial medians
Design Guidance:
• FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer
• Lateral Shift
• Taper lengths per CAMUTCD
• Chicane
• Curb extensions minimum
length of 20’
• Taper lengths per CAMUTCD
• Two-Lane Choker
• Typical minimum length is 20’
• Typical width is 6’ - 8’
• One-Lane Choker
• 16’ wide travel lane
• Two-Lane Choker
• Typical minimum length is 20’
• Typical width is 6’ - 8’
• Medians
• Typical minimum length is 20’
•
Criteria:
• Recommend to install along segments where the 85th percentile speed exceeds the posted limit by more than 5 mph and/or a segment with a history of speed related collisions.
Effectiveness:
• Studies have found lateral shifts
can reduce the 85th percentile
speed by 11 mph.*
• Studies have found that chicanes
can reduce the 85th percentile
speed by 8 - 12 mph.**
• Studies have found medians can
reduce fatal collisions by 50%.*
DESCRIPTION
Horizontal deflections are a suite of tools that create horizontal shifts in the roadway alignment, hindering the ability of drivers to travel in a straight line and forcing speed reductions to navigate. A lateral shift utilizes curb extensions to shift the roadway alignment in at least one direction. Chicanes are versions of a lateral shift, with multiple shifts in the roadway alignment forming S-shaped curves. A two-lane choker utilizes curb extensions at a mid-block location to physically narrow the roadway, while a one-lane choker does the same to reduce the roadway to one lane, forcing drivers to yield to and negotiate oncoming traffic. Medians and partial medians are raised islands along a roadway centerline that narrow the travel lanes and separate opposing traffic. While typically constructed using curb extensions, horizontal deflections can be accomplished with striping, signing, and delineators to lesser effect.
Application Lateral Shift Chicanes Two-Lane
Choker
One-Lane
Choker
Medians/Partial
Medians
Roadway Functional
Class Collector – Local Local Collector – Local Local
Major Highway –
Secondary Highway –
Collector – Local
Location Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment – Intersection Posted Speed Limit <= 35 mph <= 35 mph <= 35 mph <= 25 mph <= 45 mph Volume Any Volume ADT < 5,000 vpd ADT < 20,000 vpd ADT < 3,000 vpd Any Volume Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount Any Amount Any Amount Any Amount Any Amount Bike Lane Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Not Appropriate Appropriate Transit Route Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Not Appropriate Appropriate TIER 3
Example of a lateral shift
* FHWA, Factors Influencing Operating Speeds and Safety on Rural and Suburban Roads (2015) **NACTO, Mid-Block Speed Control: Chicanes and Speed Humps Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
26 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
18 Example of a chicane Example of a one-lane choker
Scorecard Lateral Shift Chicanes Two-Lane
Choker
One-Lane
Choker
Medians/Partial
Medians
Effectiveness
25 Speed 2 3 2 4 2
Volumes 1 2 2 4 2
Cut-Through Traffic 2 2 2 4 1
Collisions 1 1 2 1 3
Pedestrian Safety 2 2 2 2 2
Bicycle Safety 2 2 2 1 2
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost - - -
Underground Utilities
HORIZONTAL DEFLECTIONS: LATERAL SHIFT, CHICANES, TWO-LANE CHOKER, ONE-LANE CHOKER, AND MEDIANS/ PARTIAL MEDIANS TIER 3
Commercial/Industrial
Access Route Appropriate Not Appropriate Appropriate Not Appropriate Appropriate Emergency Vehicle
Route Appropriate Appropriate with Conditions Appropriate Not Appropriate Appropriate Grade < 6% < 6% < 6% < 6% < 6%
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
27 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
19 Advantages:
• Eliminates cut-through traffic
• Reduces vehicle speed and volume in
immediate vicinity
• May improve intersection safety by reducing conflict points • Reduces noise pollution in immediate vicinity
• Opportunity to increase aesthetic appeal
Disadvantages:
• Potential for disruption to local residents with road diversions causing increased travel time
• Traffic diverted to adjacent streets may create other traffic issues
• Delays emergency vehicles within local neighborhoods
• Typically moderate to high cost
Cost:
• $5,000-$20,000 per Forced Turn Island
• $2,000-$20,000 per Median Barrier
• Up to $40,000 per Diagonal Diverter
• $3,000-$40,000 per Partial Closure
Design Guidance:
• FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer
Criteria:
• An origin-destination study demonstrates at least 25% of the facility’s traffic volume is non-local traffic. An origindestination study uses vehicle’s license plates along with timestamps at each end of a segment to determine if a
vehicle is local or non-local.
• A through circulation and diversion study is required before installation.
DESCRIPTION
Neighborhood access control consist of a suite of tools that divert traffic away from select neighborhood streets, forcing drivers to use alternate routes. Forced turn islands are raised islands that restrict certain turning movements at an intersection approach, typically forcing drivers to turn right. Median barriers use raised islands along the centerline of a primary street to prevent through movements and left turns from side streets. Diagonal diverters place a raised barrier diagonally across an intersection to block through movements from each direction. Partial closures install permanent barriers such as islands, gates, or cul-de-sac conversions to close the street to traffic in one direction. The design of some of these tools can be modified to allow bicycle traffic to proceed unimpeded.
NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS CONTROL: FORCED TURN ISLAND, MEDIAN BARRIER, DIAGONAL DIVERTER, PARTIAL CLOSURE Application Forced Turn Island Median Barrier Diagonal Diverter Partial Closure Roadway Functional Class Collector – Local Collector – Local Local Local Location Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Posted Speed Limit <= 25 mph <= 25 mph <= 25 mph <= 30 mph Volume Any Volume Any Volume ADT < 3,500 vpd ADT < 3,500 vpd Cut-Through Traffic > 25% non-local > 25% non-local > 25% non-local > 25% non-local Bike Lane Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Transit Route Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Commercial/Industrial Access
Route Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate TIER 3
Example of a forced turn island
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
28 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
20 Example of a partial closure Example of a median barrier TIER 3 NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS CONTROL: FORCED TURN ISLAND, MEDIAN BARRIER, DIAGONAL DIVERTER, PARTIAL CLOSURE Scorecard Forced Turn
Island Median Barrier Diagonal Diverter Partial Closure Effectiveness
25 Speed 2 2 3 3
Volumes 2 2 2 2
Cut-Through Traffic 4 4 4 4
Collisions 3 3 2 2
Pedestrian Safety 3 3 3 3
Bicycle Safety 3 3 3 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost -
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Emergency Vehicle Route Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Grade Any Slope Any Slope < 6% Any Slope
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
29 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
21 Application Roundabout
Roadway Functional Class Major Highway – Secondary Highway – Collector Location Intersection
Posted Speed Limit Any Speed
Volume Any Volume
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate with Conditions
Transit Route Appropriate with Conditions
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate with Conditions Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate with Conditions
Grade < 4%
Advantages:
• Demonstrated effectiveness in reducing collisions
and collision severity
• May improve pedestrian safety by reducing conflict
points from turning vehicles
• May reduce emissions and noise pollution from
vehicles stopping and starting
• Lower operation and maintenance costs than a
signalized intersection
• Opportunity to increase aesthetic appeal
Disadvantages:
• Typically requires a large physical footprint with
potential right-of-way acquisition
• Consideration must be made to safely
accommodate bicycle facilities
• May be difficult for large vehicles to navigate
• May reduce on-street parking
• High cost to implement
• Requires lengthy study and public engagement
process prior to implementation
Cost:
• $150,000 - $2,000,000 per roundabout
Design Guidance:
• FHWA Guidelines, CAMUTCD
DESCRIPTION
Modern roundabouts are large, raised islands that serve as a form of intersection control and are typically used in place of a traffic signal when upgrading a four-way stop-controlled intersection.
Drivers circulate counterclockwise around the raised feature to traverse the intersection. Approaches to the intersection are yield-controlled and typically have flared entry lanes that increase capacity for the intersection and raised splitter islands that deflect and form gaps in traffic. Roundabouts substantially lower collision risk by reducing potential conflict points within an intersection.
TIER 4 VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS: ROUNDABOUT
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
30 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
22 Example of a roundabout Example of a roundabout
TIER 4 VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS: ROUNDABOUT
Scorecard Roundabout
Effectiveness
25 Speed 3
Volumes 1
Cut-Through Traffic 1
Collisions 4
Pedestrian Safety 3
Bicycle Safety 2
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
31 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
23 Application Speed Legends
Roadway Functional Class Local
Location Segment – Intersection
Posted Speed Limit <= 30 mph
Volume ADT < 4,000 vpd
Cut-Through Traffic > 25% non-local
Bike Lane Appropriate
Transit Route Not Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Not Appropriate
Emergency Vehicle Route Not Appropriate
Grade Any Slope
Advantages:
• Eliminates cut-through traffic
• May improve intersection safety by reduing conflict
points
• Reduces noise pollution in immediate vicinity
Disadvantages:
• Eliminates cut-through traffic
• May improve intersection safety by reduing conflict
points
• Reduces noise pollution in immediate vicinity
Cost:
• Up to $100,000 for Full Closure
Design Guidance:
• FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer
Criteria:
• An origin-destination study demonstrates at least
25% of the facility’s traffic volume is non-local
traffic. An origin-destination study uses vehicle’s
license plates along with timestamps at each end
of a segment to determine if a vehicle is local or
non-local.
• A through circulation and diversion study is
required before installation.
DESCRIPTION
Neighborhood access control diverts traffic away from select neighborhood streets, forcing drivers to use alternate routes. Full closures install permanent barriers such as islands, gates, or culde-sac conversions to close the street to traffic in both directions.
The design of some of these tools can be modified to allow bicycle traffic to proceed unimpeded.
TIER 4 NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS CONTROL: FULL CLOSURE
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
32 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
24 Add caption
Here
Add caption
Here Example of a full closure for access control Example of a full closure for access control TIER 4 NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS CONTROL: FULL CLOSURE
Scorecard Full Closure
Effectiveness
25 Speed 3
Volumes 2
Cut-Through Traffic 4
Collisions 2
Pedestrian Safety 3
Bicycle Safety 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
33 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
25 Advantages:
• Demonstrated effectiveness in reducing vehicle
speed and cut-through traffic
• May reduce traffic volumes and collision activity
• Typically low to moderate cost
Disadvantages:
• May inadvertently divert traffic onto
adjacent streets
• May increase noise and air pollution as
vehicles accelerate and decelerate
• Some tools slow transit, emergency vehicles,
and trucks
• May complicate drainage design
• May reduce on-street parking
Cost:
• $15,000-$20,000 per speed kidney
• $15,000-$20,000 per speed table
Design Guidance:
• FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HRT-15-030
• Speed tables typical height is 3-3.5” and 22’ length
• Arrangement of three speed lumps spaced
3-4’ apart
Criteria:
• Recommend to install vertical deflections where the
85th percentile speed exceeds the posted limit by
more than 5 mph and/or a segment with a history of
speed related collisions.
• A through circulation and diversion study is required before installation.
Effectiveness:
• Studies have found speed tables can reduce the
85th percentile speed by 5 mph.*
• Studies have found speed kidneys can reduce the
85th percentile speed by 11.2 mph.**
DESCRIPTION
Vertical deflections are a suite of tools consisting of raised features along a roadway that force vehicles to reduce speed to comfortably traverse them. Speed kidneys are a series of elongated raised features with a curvilinear shape in the direction of traffic, giving vehicles the option to either pass over them or take a curvilinear path to avoid vertical discomfort. Speed tables are wider, flat-topped raised features that can accommodate most vehicles ‘wheelbases, allowing slightly faster crossing speeds.
Speed tables can be improved with crosswalk markings to create a raised crosswalk or expanded to cover an entire intersection to create a raised intersection.
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS: SPEED KIDNEYS AND SPEED TABLE
Application Speed Kidneys Speed Table
Roadway Functional Class Collector – Local Collector – Local Location Segment Segment
Posted Speed Limit <= 30 mph <= 30 mph
Volume ADT < 4,000 vpd ADT < 7,500 vpd
Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount Any Amount
Bike Lane Appropriate Appropriate
Transit Route Appropriate Not Appropriate
Commercial/Industrial Access Route Appropriate Not Appropriate TIER 4
* FHWA, Traffic Calming ePrimer * FHWA, Factors Influencing Operating Speeds and Safety on Rural and Suburban Roads (2015) Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
34 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
26 Example of speed kidney Example of speed table
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS: SPEED KIDNEYS AND SPEED TABLE
Scorecard Speed Kidneys Speed Table
Effectiveness
25 Speed 3 3
Volumes 2 3
Cut-Through Traffic 2 3
Collisions 2 2
Pedestrian Safety 2 2
Bicycle Safety 3 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
Emergency Vehicle Route Appropriate Not Appropriate
Grade < 8% < 8%
TIER 4
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
35 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
27 Application Traffic Circle Raised Crosswalk Raised Intersection Roadway Functional Class Local Collector – Local Collector – Local Location Intersection Segment – Intersection Intersection Posted Speed Limit <= 25 mph <= 30 mph <= 35 mph
Volume ADT < 10,000 vpd ADT < 9,000 vpd ADT < 4,000 vpd Cut-Through Traffic Any Amount Any Amount Any Amount
Bike Lane Not Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
Advantages:
• Demonstrated effectiveness in reducing vehicle speed
and cut-through traffic
• Raised crosswalk and intersections demonstrated
effectiveness in improving pedestrian safety
• May reduce traffic volumes and collision activity
• Typically moderate cost
• Traffic cirlcles do not heavily impact emergency vehicles and add to the aesthetic of the street.
Disadvantages:
• May inadvertently divert traffic onto adjacent streets • May increase noise and air pollution as vehicles
accelerate and decelerate
• Some tools slow transit, emergency vehicles,
and trucks
• May complicate drainage design
• May reduce on-street parking
• Landscaping in traffic circles needs maintenance to
maintain sight distance
Cost:
• $15,000-$20,000 per Traffic Circle
• $15,000-$20,000 per Raised Crosswalk
• $30,000-$60,000 per Raised Intersection
Design Guidance:
• Traffic Circle
• FHWA Traffic Calming E-Primer
• Typically minimum diameter of 9’
• Raised Intersection
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• Typically rises no more than 3”
• Raised Crosswalk
• FHWA-SA-18-063
• Flush with the height of the sidewalk
• Crosswalk table is typically at least 10 feet wide
Criteria:
• Recommend to install along segments where the 85th
percentile speed exceeds the posted limit by more
than 5 mph and/or a segment with a history of speed
and pedestrian related collisions.
• A through circulation and diversion study is required before installation.
• Truck turning analysis is required to determine the
feasibility of traffic circles at intersections.
Effectiveness:
• Studies have found traffic circles can reduce vehicles speeds by 5 - 13 mph within the limits of a traffic circle.* • Studies have found raised crosswalks can reduce
pedestrian collisions by 45%.**
DESCRIPTION
Vertical deflections are a suite of tools consisting of raised features along a roadway that force vehicles to reduce speed to comfortably traverse them. Traffic circles are used to slow down vehicular traffic at unsignalized intersections and feature landscaping to help focus road user attention on approaching traffic. Raised crosswalks provide an elevated crossing to reduce vehicle speed and better place pedestrians in a drivers field of vision. Raised intersections provide similar benefits to raised crosswalks but span the larger intersection area.
TIER 4 VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS: TRAFFIC CIRCLE, RAISED CROSSWALK, AND RAISED INTERSECTION * FHWA, Traffic Calming ePrimer ** PedSafe, Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
36 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
28 Example of a traffic circle Example of a raised intersection Scorecard Traffic Circle Raised Crosswalk Raised Intersection Effectiveness
25 Speed 4 3 3
Volumes 1 2 2
Cut-Through Traffic 1 2 2
Collisions 4 2 2
Pedestrian Safety 1 4 4
Bicycle Safety 1 3 3
Impacts
Emergency Vehicles
Impacts on Noise
On-Street Parking
Cost
Underground Utilities
VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS: TRAFFIC CIRCLE, RAISED CROSSWALK, AND RAISED INTERSECTION Transit Route Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Commercial/Industrial Access Route Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Emergency Vehicle Route Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Not Appropriate Grade < 4% < 8% < 8%
Effectiveness
1 - Low Effectiveness
2 - Medium Effectiveness
3 - High Effectiveness
4 - Very High Effectiveness
Cost
$ - Less than $2,000
$$ - $2,000 - $19,999
$$$ - $2,0000 - $50,000
$$$$ - Greater than $50,000
Impacts
Reduces
Increases
Impacts
No Impact
TIER 4
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
37 Name of Client XX000000.20 3
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
38 TOOL ELIGIBILITY SCREENING
MATRIX PARENT STRATEGY
PRIMARY CRITERIA ADDITIONAL CRITERIA
Roadway Functional Class Location Posted
Speed
Limit
Volume Cut-Through
Traffic Bike Lane Transit
Route
Commercial/
Industrial
Access Route
Emergency
Vehicle
Access Route
Major Grade
Highway
Secondary
Highway Collector Local Segment Intersection
GENERAL TOOLS
Enforcement Enforcement Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope Education Programming Education Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope TIER 1
Speed Legend Striping Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope Signage Signage Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope Reflective Sign Post Panel Signage Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope Signed Turn Restrictions Neighborhood Access Control Any Speed Any Volume > 25% non-local Any Slope Transverse Rumble Strips Striping Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope TIER 2
Centerline Striping Striping Any Speed ADT >3,000 vpd Any Amount Any Slope Edgeline Striping Striping Any Speed ADT >3,000 vpd Any Amount Any Slope Speed Radar Feedback Sign Signage Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope High-Visibility Crosswalk Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount < 5% TIER 3
Curb Extensions (bulbouts) Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount < 5% Pedestrian Refuge Island Pedestrian Crossing Improvements <= 35 mph ADT > 9,000 vpd Any Amount < 5% Roadway Reconfiguration Pedestrian Crossing Improvements >= 35mph ADT < 20,000 vpd Any Amount Any Slope Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons Pedestrian Crossing Improvements <= 40 mph Any Volume Any Amount Any Slope Lateral Shift Horizontal Deflections <= 35 mph Any Volume Any Amount < 6% Chicanes Horizontal Deflections <= 35 mph ADT < 5,000 vpd Any Amount < 6% Two-Lane Choker Horizontal Deflections <= 35 mph ADT < 20,000 vpd Any Amount < 6% One-Lane Choker Horizontal Deflections <= 25 mph ADT < 3,000 vpd Any Amount < 6% Medians and Partial Medians Horizontal Deflections <= 45 mph Any Volume Any Amount < 6% Forced Turn Island Neighborhood Access Control <= 25 mph Any Volume > 25% non-local Any Slope Median Barrier Neighborhood Access Control <= 25mph Any Volume > 25% non-local Any Slope Diagonal Diverter Neighborhood Access Control <= 25 mph ADT < 3,500 vpd > 25% non-local < 6% Partial Closure Neighborhood Access Control <= 30 mph ADT < 3,500 vpd > 25% non-local Any Slope TIER 4
Roundabout Vertical Deflections Any Speed Any Volume Any Amount < 4% Full Closure Neighborhood Access Control <= 30 mph ADT < 4,000 vpd > 25% non-local Any Slope Speed Kidneys Vertical Deflections <= 30 mph ADT <4,000 vpd Any Amount < 8% Speed Table Vertical Deflections <= 30 mph ADT <7,500 vpd Any Amount < 8% Traffic Circle Vertical Deflections <=25 mph ADT <10,000 vpd Any Amount < 4% Raised Crosswalk Vertical Deflections <=30 mph ADT <9,000 vpd Any Amount < 8% Raised Intersection Vertical Deflections <=35 mph ADT <4,000 vpd Any AMount < 8% City of Lomita Appropriate Appropriate with Conditions Not Appropriate Tool Selection
Name of Client XX000000.20 3
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
39 Tool Effectiveness & Impacts
Each tool was evaluated for its effectiveness at reducing the primary traffic calming issues of speed, traffic volumes, cut-through traffic, and collisions. Each tool was also evaluated for its potential to improve pedestrian bicycle safety. Additionally, the impact of each tool on emergency vehicles, noise pollution, and on-street parking was evaluated in addition to its typical cost range. Information was sourced from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Calming ePrimer and the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) guide on traffic calming measures. 1 Low 2 Medium 3 High 4 Very High
Increases Reduces Impacts No Impact
Cost
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT PARENT STRATEGY
EFFECTIVENESS IMPACT
Speed Volume Cut-Through
Traffic Collisions Pedestrian
Safety Bike Safety Emergency
Vehicles Noise On-Street
Parking Cost Underground
Utilies
GENERAL TOOLS
Enforcement Enforcement 4 1 2 2 3 3 $$
Education Programming Education 2 2 2 2 2 2 $
TIER 1
Speed Legend Striping 2 1 1 2 2 2 $
Signage Signage 2 1 1 2 2 2 $
Reflective Sign Post Panel Signage 1 1 1 2 1 2 $
Signed Turn Restrictions Neighborhood Access Control 1 3 3 2 2 3 $ Transverse Rumble Strips Striping 2 1 1 2 2 1 $
TIER 2
Centerline Striping Striping 2 1 1 2 1 2 $
Edgeline Striping Striping 2 1 1 2 1 3 $
Speed Radar Feedback Sign Signage 3 1 1 1 1 1 $
High-Visibility Crosswalk Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 2 1 1 3 4 3 $$ TIER 3
Curb Extensions (bulbouts) Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 3 1 1 2 4 2 $$ Pedestrian Refuge Island Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 2 1 1 2 3 2 $$ Roadway Reconfiguration Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 3 2 2 3 2 3 $$ Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 2 1 1 3 4 3 $$$ Lateral Shift Horizontal Deflections 2 1 2 1 2 2 $$$
Chicanes Horizontal Deflections 3 2 2 1 2 2 $$–$$$
Two-Lane Choker Horizontal Deflections 2 2 2 2 2 2 $$–$$$ One-Lane Choker Horizontal Deflections 4 4 4 1 2 1 $$–$$$ Medians and Partial Medians Horizontal Deflections 2 2 1 3 2 2 $$–$$$ Forced Turn Island Neighborhood Access Control 2 2 4 3 3 3 $$$ Median Barrier Neighborhood Access Control 2 2 4 3 3 3 $$$ Diagonal Diverter Neighborhood Access Control 3 2 4 2 3 3 $$$ Partial Closure Neighborhood Access Control 3 2 4 2 3 3 $$$ TIER 4
Roundabout Vertical Deflections 3 1 1 4 3 2 $$$$
Full Closure Neighborhood Access Control 3 2 4 2 3 3 $$$$ Speed Kidneys Vertical Deflections 3 2 2 2 2 3 $
Speed Table Vertical Deflections 3 3 3 2 2 3 $
Traffic Circle Vertical Deflections 4 1 1 4 1 1 $$$
Raised Crosswalk Vertical Deflections 3 2 2 2 4 3 $$
Raised Intersection Vertical Deflections 3 2 2 2 4 3 $$$ City of Lomita
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
40 Case Study Locations
Based on resident feedback from the first community workshop, six (6) case study locations were determined and are used to help demonstrate how the toolkit could be implemented. The case study locations vary in facility type, facility user, and are at locations spread throughout the City. The possible tools for each case study location provide an incremental approach to traffic calming solutions that help to address the resident’s traffic concerns identified in the community workshop.
262ND ST
CAYUGA AVE
WESTERN AVE
OCEAN VIEW AVE
Striping
Striping
Signed Turned
Restrictions for
Southbound Right
Turn movement during
morning peakhours
MATCH TO PAGE 42 TOP LEFT
*Vehicle volumes obtained from Replica
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
CASE STUDY LOCATION #1: 262ND STREET BETWEEN ESHELMAN AVENUE & WESTERN AVENUE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Speed Limit: 25 MPH
• Street Width (Curb to Curb): 40’
• Street Classification: Local Street
• Approximate Daily Roadway Volume*:
• 1,660 vehicles
CONCERNS
• Cut-through traffic
• Speeding
OBSERVATIONS
• Heavy southbound left volume at Eshelman Ave & 262nd St • Cut-through traffic shall be validated through an origindestination study. This study uses vehicle’s license plates along with timestamps at each end of a segment to determine if a vehicle is local or non-local
• A through circulation and diversion study is required before installation
R
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
41 CASE STUDY LOCATION #1: 262ND STREET BETWEEN ESHELMAN AVENUE & WESTERN AVENUE ESHELMAN AVE 262ND ST
262ND ST
APPIAN WAY
REGENT AVE
ESHELMAN AVE
MONTE VISTA AVE
Striping
Striping
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
MATCH TO PAGE 41 BOTTOM RIGHT
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
42 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
43 CASE STUDY LOCATION ##: STREET NAMES
R
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Speed Limit: 30 MPH
• Street Width (Curb to Curb): 60’
• Street Classification:
Collector, Local Street
• Approximate Daily Roadway
Volume*:
• 4,650 vehicles
CONCERNS
• Pedestrian Safety
OBSERVATIONS
• Speeding
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
CASE STUDY LOCATION #2: ESHELMAN AVENUE BETWEEN 257TH STREET AND 253RD STREET
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ESHELMAN AVE
254TH ST
253RD PL
255TH ST
Alexander
Fleming
Middle School
Additional Signage
Rumble Strips
Rumble Strips
Rumble Strips
30 Speed Legend
Raised Median
Raised Median
MATCH TO PAGE 44 TOP LEFT
*Vehicle volumes obtained from Replica
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
43 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
44 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CASE STUDY LOCATION #2: ESHELMAN AVENUE BETWEEN 257TH STREET AND 253RD STREET ESHELMAN AVE 30 257TH ST
Alexander
Fleming
Middle School
Speed Legend
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Raised Median
MATCH TO PAGE 43 BOTTOM LEFT
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
44 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
44 CASE STUDY LOCATION ##: STREET NAMES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Speed Limit: 30 MPH
• Street Width (Curb to Curb): 60’
• Street Classification:
Collector Street
• Approximate Daily Roadway
Volume*:
• 2,690 vehicles
CONCERNS
• Pedestrian Safety
OBSERVATIONS
• Speeding
R
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
CASE STUDY LOCATION #3: ESHELMAN AVENUE BETWEEN ESHELMAN WAY AND 242ND STREET
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ESHELMAN AVE
30 242ND ST
DAWN ST
Raised Median
Signage
Lomita Park
Speed Legend
MATCH TO PAGE 46 TOP LEFT
*Vehicle volumes obtained from Replica
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
45 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
45 CASE STUDY LOCATION ##: STREET NAMES
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CASE STUDY LOCATION #3: ESHELMAN AVENUE BETWEEN ESHELMAN WAY AND 242ND STREET
LOMITA PARK PL
ESHELMAN WY
30 Rectangular RapidFlashing Beacon (RRFB)
Rectangular RapidFlashing Beacon (RRFB)
ESHELMAN AVE
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Lomita Park
Speed Legend
Curb Extensions
(Bulbouts)
MATCH TO PAGE 45 BOTTOM LEFT
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
46 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
46 EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Speed Limit: 25 MPH
• Street Width (Curb to Curb): 35’
• Street Classification:
Collector Street
• Approximate Daily Roadway
Volume*:
• 5,990 vehicles
CONCERNS
• Pedestrian Safety
R
CASE STUDY LOCATION #4: PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE BETWEEN FORRESTER DRIVE AND 255TH STREET 255TH ST
256TH ST
30 PENNSYLVANIA AVE
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Reflective Sign
Post Panel
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION DESCRIPTION
*Vehicle volumes obtained from Replica
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
47 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
47 CASE STUDY LOCATION ##: STREET NAME
R
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Speed Limit: 25 MPH
• Street Width (Curb to Curb): 35’
• Street Classification: Collector
Street (Walnut St), Local Street
(247th St)
• Approximate Daily Roadway
Volume*:
• 3,070 vehicles (Walnut St)
• 1,890 vehicles (247th St)
CONCERNS
• Pedestrian Safety
• Cut-through traffic
OBSERVATIONS
• Speeding
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
247TH ST
NORDMAN ST
WALNUT ST
PADRON PL
Reflective Sign Post Panel
247TH ST Reflective Sign
Post Panel
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
CASE STUDY LOCATION #5: WALNUT STREET BETWEEN 247TH STREET AND NORDMAN STREET 247TH STREET BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND WESTERN AVENUE
*Vehicle volumes obtained from Replica
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
48 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
48 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION DESCRIPTION
*Vehicle volumes obtained from Replica
R
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Speed Limit: 25 MPH
• Street Width (Curb to Curb): 35’
• Street Classification:
Collector Street
• Approximate Daily Roadway
Volume*:
• 4,550 vehicles
CONCERNS
• Pedestrian Safety
• Sight Distance/Visibility
OBSERVATIONS
• Speeding
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
247TH ST
248TH ST
247TH ST
Reflective Sign Post Panel
Edgeline Striping
Edgeline Striping
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Reflective Sign
Post Panel
MATCH TO PAGE 50 TOP LEFT
CASE STUDY LOCATION #6: PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE BETWEEN MCKENNA COURT AND 248TH STREET Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
49 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
49 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CASE STUDY LOCATION #6: PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE BETWEEN MCKENNA COURT AND 248TH STREET PENNSYLVANIA AVE 250TH ST 250TH ST
Edgeline Striping
Edgeline Striping
Reflective Sign
Post Panel
Reflective Sign
Post Panel
MATCH TO PAGE 49 BOTTOM LEFT
Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
50 Name of Client XX000000.20 1
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
51 APPENDIX 1
16 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Select Countermeasure(s)
Table 1 provides initial countermeasure
options for various roadway conditions. Each
matrix cell indicates possibilities that may
be appropriate for designated pedestrian
crossings. Not all of the countermeasures
listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be
installed at a crossing.
For multi-lane roadway crossings with
vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked
crosswalk alone is typically insufficient
(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more
substantial crossing improvements (such as
the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also
needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian
crash potential.
Roadway Configuration
Posted Speed Limit and AADT
Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000 ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph 2 lanes
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes with raised median
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes w/o raised median
(1 lane in each direction with a
two-way left-turn lane)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ lanes with raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ lanes w/o raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Given the set of conditions in a cell,
# Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate
treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.
Signifies that the countermeasure should always be
considered, but not mandated or required, based upon
engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled
crossing location.
Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction with other identified
countermeasures.*
The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may be considered following engineering judgment.
1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs
2 Raised crosswalk
3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line
4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
5 Curb extension
6 Pedestrian refuge island
7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)**
8 Road Diet
9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**
Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature. *Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures. **It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.
This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners.