Neighborhood Traffic Calming (NTC) Program Update. Rebranded: Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program. Version: NTC Program Update, Living Document v8

Transcription

1 Neighborhood Traffic Calming (NTC) Program Update Rebranded: Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program Version: NTC Program Update, Living Document v8 Last Updated: October 15, 2014 Why Update the NTC Program? The NTC Program was last updated in November, During 2012, the City received no requests for neighborhood traffic calming. In 2013, the City received four requests for traffic calming. The City also received two requests for neighborhood traffic calming that had to be declined because they were for collector streets or minor arterial streets, which are not eligible under the NTC Program. In 2014, the City received one more request for traffic calming, one request that had to be declined because it was for a minor arterial street, and four expressions of interest. As adopted, the NTC Program cannot handle this volume of requests. In particular, the NTC Program is insufficiently staffed and lacks clear definitions at key decision points. These problems result in frustration for citizens because traffic calming solutions are delivered very slowly, frustration for the CACT because it must try to administer the program with insufficient resources, and frustration for staff because it cannot spend the appropriate amount of time to deliver a quality solution. THE NTC Program includes guidance for reviewing and updating the Program. Chapter 5 of the Program includes the following guidance: Periodically, the CACT/CIT will review the NTC Program Handbook, including its standards and criteria, to determine whether they are appropriate for current conditions. This analysis will consider all NTC requests which did not meet the thresholds as well as those which did. Additionally, citizens who feel that the NTC process needs refinement may bring their issues to the table for discussion and consideration by the CACT/CIT and the City Council liaison. It is important that the Fall Church City citizens find the NTC process to be fair and the policies consistently applied. The CACT/CIT will closely monitor the following areas for effectiveness: The criteria used to determine whether a problem exists and how severe it is The criteria which must be met in order to qualify for a traffic calming measure

2 The funding priorities The process Budget requirements The minimum public support thresholds for various measures within the affected area

3 What is the Timeline for Updating the NTC Program? The program will be updated over a nine month period, running from June 2014 through February The CACT will serve as the primary advisory group for updating the program. Below is a list of milestones for updating the program. Unless otherwise noted, these dates coincide with CACT meeting dates, the second Wednesday of the month. June 11, 2014: 1. Discussion of what the City wants to achieve with its NTC program 2. Identify problems with the existing NTC Program. July 7, 2014 (Council work session) 1. Concurrence on scope of Program update 2. Concurrence on timeline of Program update July 9, 2014: 1. Review of other programs to be consolidated, including sign requests and parking restrictions. August 13, 2014: 1. Review of programs from walk-friendly communities of similar size to the City of Falls Church, September 10, 2014: 1. Introduction to new draft framework/program incorporating points from discussion up to this point, including guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, CACT review of the existing Program, and review of programs from other communities. October 8, 2014: 1. Review and discussion of draft framework/program. October 20, 2014 (Council work session): 1. Council work session to discuss critical structural points of the new draft NTC Program, including (1) funding, (2) timing, and (3) the split between staff and CACT responsibilities November 12, 2014: 1. Recap of meeting with Council 2. Set milestones for December and January December 10, 2014: 1. TBD January 14, 2015: 2. Final review of updated Program and recommendation to Council. February 11, 2015: fall back date

4 What Does the City Want to Achieve with the NTC Program? This topic was discussed at the June 11, 2014 CACT meeting. Visions and Goals in Existing NTC Program Vision: Provide shared, safe access on neighborhood streets for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and drivers in the City of Falls Church, Virginia. Goals: Promote a culture of people first for the use of neighborhood streets. Improve environment for walking and biking in the City of Falls Church Provide a forum for citizen concerns about traffic on neighborhood streets. Slow traffic where speeding exists on residential streets Identify residential areas that are in need of traffic-calming measures. Assist the City Council in establishing effective, fair, and consistent policies for implementing traffic calming measures. Provide feedback to the City Manager to make informed decisions about traffic calming Foster collaboration and a shared sense of purpose between City residents and staff in addressing traffic problems. Concepts for Updating the Vision and Goals Rename the Program, to call it the Neighborhood Transportation Safety Program Safety: Replace references to speed with references to safety. Speeding in the traditional sense is not always the source of the problem, sometimes it is visibility, intersection design, or lightning. Thus, safety should be the focus, not speed. Residential: Expand scope to consider all residential areas, including residential areas on collector and minor arterial streets. Currently streets such as S West St, Hillwood Ave, and Little Falls St cannot be considered under the program because of their road classification. Responsive: Stress that the program is responsive to community concerns at that it is a neighborhood driven process. Neighborhood: Address concerns at the neighborhood level as opposed to the street level. Focused: Focus the program on issues of residential neighborhood safety

5 Problems with the Existing NTC Program This topic was discussed at the June 11, 2014 CACT meeting. Process Suffers from resource (staff and budget) limitations Fails to set timing expectations (typically 3 years for a project) Lacks a process for prioritizing cases (how to identify cases with greatest need) Does not include a mechanism and guidelines for handling smaller scale requests administratively (which would speed up response times) Fails to coordinate overlapping programs NTC, sign requests, enforcement requests, etc. Application process does not sufficiently gauge public interest, places too much of a burden on staff and CACT resources in response to a request from a single resident; a block captain or block committee should be more involved throughout the process to keep the neighborhood more engaged and reduce outreach burdens on staff Substance Ignores traffic volumes in assessing traffic calming needs Typically operated at the street level instead of the neighborhood level Lacks guidelines for setting study area boundaries (what is the right area to study?) Does not define how to handle situations in which commercial uses are adjacent to residential Cannot address issues on collector or minor arterial streets, should it address everything outside the Planning Opportunity Areas (POAs)? Includes references to a Park Connectivity Plan and Primary Routes to Metro, which were part of the draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan but were never adopted as City policy Scoring is out of balance, giving to much weight to certain factors Does not include preferences or guidelines for selecting among different techniques Does not include guidelines for non-engineered solutions, such as enforcement, education, signs, or striping Does not include guidelines for use of temporary measures followed by a reassessment of data

6 Other Programs to Consolidate This topic was discussed at the July 9, 2014 CACT meeting. Currently, several city programs respond to concerns regarding neighborhood traffic safety. The programs are difficult to administer because they have overlapping solutions and they are operated by different departments. Consolidating these programs under one umbrella would provide residents with a single access point of information and help coordinate responses across departments. The current programs that respond to neighborhood traffic safety are: The NTC Program, Sign requests, Striping requests, Parking restrictions, Enforcement requests, and Education efforts. Any consolidation of these programs should include guidelines for when to select one type of response versus another. Additionally, guidance should be provided as to when staff should act administratively with a narrow public engagement process versus when the CACT should be engaged and a wider public engagement process used.

7 Review of Other Programs from Walk-Friendly Communities This topic was discussed at the August 13, 2014 CACT meeting. CACT Chair Paul Baldino conducted an extensive review of traffic calming programs in walk-friendly communities in the Washington, D.C., region and the rest of the country. In his review, Baldino identified several ways in which the City s program differs from that of other communities. The CACT discussed these differences and came to the following consensus positions regarding the City s NTC Program update.

8 Type of Change Change Considered Description Pros Cons Require applicants to assure a level of public support as part of the application process Require applications to demonstrate neighborhood support for traffic calming generally. Currently, an application can be submitted by a single resident. Under the current Program each application received requires hours of staff and CACT time to review. Requiring a demonstration of support would help apply staff and CACT resources where they are most desired. - spends staff and CACT resources more efficiently - starts grass roots efforts earlier. In previous case cases, better grass roots efforts correlated with better outcomes Discuss Further? - what is the right level of support to require? Neighborhood Responsibilities Require applicants to establish a Working Group or designate a Neighborhood Representative to participate in the development of the TC solution Require applicants to obtain and document public support for the recommended TC solution Require the neighborhood to establish a working group. The working group would interact directly with City staff and the CACT in developing the recommended traffic calming solutions and in communicating with the rest of the neighborhood The working group, the CACT, and staff would work together to develop a particular proposal and a specific write-up to describe it. Then, the working group would be responsible for canvassing the neighborhood to get signatures in support of the proposed changes - helps to develop consensus among different stakeholders in the neighborhood - allows working group members to explain process and "sell" concept - potential for social pressure - working group members may not be impartial, though staff and CACT are also not impartial - loss of staff control over information (mitigated by premade write-ups) Public Engagement Reestablish TC as a staffadministered program without an appointed citizen body in the decision making process Include in the TC voting area residents/property owners on streets expected to receive significant increases in traffic volume as the result of a TC installation Revert the program to a staff administered program as opposed to the current process which has a lengthy public engagement process Current process uses case-by-case study areas. Should definition be pre-set to include pre-defined study areas, or should study areas be expanded to capture more potential volume increases? - could deliver solutions more quickly - when would a project need review by the CACT - faster implementation and lack of public engagement could lead to mistakes - concern about pre-set areas, would require a long public process to define - concern about pre-set areas, they will change with development patterns - concern about pre-set areas, people may be "stuck" in one area and unable to apply for neighboring area - concern about expanding study area, would all households in the expanded area always vote no? No Not for engineered solutions, but perhaps for non-physical changes No

9 Include willingness of residents to have measures installed in front of their home Some traffic calming solutions may be desirable for the neighborhood, but not for adjacent property owners, perhaps because of noise or light Currently, the Program is based on "households". Other common units are "residents" and "property owners". Refine criteria for eligibility to apply and vote for TC solutions No Maintain status quo, household, it seems to be working without problem. - staff to investigate how other jurisdictions handle votes from apartment or condominium buildings Establish a rule for counting votes from single properties with multiple dwelling units Currently, each dwelling unit gets one vote. Should that be different for buildings with multiple dwelling units? Program Scope Incorporate the TC program into a larger neighborhood enhancement program Expand TC program eligibility to collector streets Expand the Program to allow residents to request installation of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, street lights, park improvements, and neighborhood art. Currently, the Program is restricted to "residential" classified streets. Expand this to include "collector" streets, which are typically very residential in character. - provides a broader context for projects - could allow neighborhoods to develop a "small area plan" for their neighborhoods - provides mechanism for residents along these streets to request traffic calming - requires more resources in staff and funding than the City is willing to commit - expected limit of resources is $200,000 per year No - not feasible with current resources, but worth considering in the future Evaluation of Need Include measures of traffic volume in TC decisions Include measures of cut-through traffic in TC decisions Consider traffic volume in evaluating a neighborhood's need for traffic calming. Consider what amount or percentage of the traffic is cut-through traffic - moves conversation beyond 85% speed - could incorporate changes in streets over time, growing traffic volume - is cut-through traffic the problem, or is it really speed and volume? - should volume be discouraged? - consider whether street classification should be a factor, either for or against traffic calming No Safety risks can be evaluated by assessing speed and volume Schedule Provide a schedule or timeline in program literature to inform applicants of the major milestones and time that typically elapses between application and installation. Provide a schedule by which applications would proceed. Include language that stipulates progress under current staffing levels. Look for ways to reduce the number of steps in the current program.

10 Set a due date for receipt of applications to be considered within the fiscal year Require applicants to apply by particular dates throughout the year in order to be considered during a particular timeframe - creates a hurdle to requesting traffic calming - only meaningful if staffing levels would adjust to the number of requests received, but staffing levels are constant in the short term No When feasible, implement solutions that do not require physical TC devices before proceeding to engineering design Consider enforcement, information, education, signs, paint, or striping that could deliver solutions quickly before engaging in a longer planning, engineering, and construction process. - could deliver solutions much faster - could allow for "short cutting" of longer public engagement process if the Program stipulate changes that can be made quickly - moving faster could lead to incomplete solutions, or perhaps make things worse - do not want to see intermediate solutions become a requirement for larger changes Implementation and Selection of Traffic Calming Solutions Provide diagrams or photos of acceptable TC devices in program literature. Specify prohibited TC devices in program literature. Allow neighborhoods to use the TC program to apply for removal or modification of a TC device Allow neighborhoods to fund approved TC enhancements Provide diagrams in handbook with nearby examples of different measures. Explain pros and cons of each. Provide diagrams in handbook with nearby examples of different measures. Explain pros and cons of each. Provide a mechanism in the Program through which neighborhoods can request removal of traffic calming devices. Allow neighborhoods to fund a percentage of the changes to prioritize implementation or to include aesthetic changes. Could also include special assessments. - could be handled by adding one line to the Program, allowing for application to remove traffic calming - good to have an option to "undo" previous changes - concerns about equity, instead of applying funds according to need and established process - should neighborhood have to pay for removal? No Establish a Pace Car Program Traffic Education Establish a program whereby residents can request bumper stickers that signify they are driving the speed limit and courteously to improve safety Provide more information in the Program Handbook Make more use of the speed feedback trailer - outreach and education tool - makes people think about their behavior as they drive - requires some administration - could be a conflict for multiple drivers sharing one or more cars Establish prerequisites before a TC application is accepted Require neighborhoods to create a longterm plan, or for applicants to first work with Police Department, or to attend a traffic calming workshop. - would prolong an already long process - increased enforcement commonly requested already No - consider deploying mobile speed feedback trailer upon requesting traffic calming request

11 Draft Program The draft program was introduced during the September 10, 2014 CACT meeting. The program was discussed in depth during the October 8, 2014 CACT meeting. Study Area In order to promote fairness and remove potentially arbitrary decisions from the process, the CACT and City staff agreed that a defined process is needed for setting study area boundaries. Several approaches were considered including preset study areas, minimum size study areas, and expandable study areas. There was concern that overly small study areas could overlook potential spillover effects. At the same time, there was concern that overly large study areas would make it too difficult to achieve the broad neighborhood consensus needed to approve changes. Additionally, the expectation is that staff will have resources to implement projects on only a few blocks every year, so there was concern about identifying a study area larger than staff can address in a reasonable timeframe. Ultimately, the group decided on the following heuristic for determining study areas. Mid-Block Concerns: If the traffic concerns are midblock, then the study area will include that block, and the intersections at either end. Parcel Street Traffic Concern Study Area

12 Intersection Concerns: If the traffic concerns are at an intersection, then the study area will include all street segments touching that intersection as far as the next intersection. Parcel Street Traffic Concern Study Area In multiple concerns are identified in a single application, these study area patterns should be combined to encompass all parcels consistent with the above concepts. The CACT and staff agreed that setting the study areas in this way may lead to spillover effects on other streets. However, spillover effects may be unavoidable under any system. This system has significant benefits in terms of it being open and easy to understand. If adjacent streets do suffer spillover effects, they are welcome and encouraged to file their own petitions for traffic calming. Additionally, at the time of application, City staff should encourage applicants to reach out to their neighbors and discuss whether they are interested in joining the application and expanding the study area. Prioritizing (Scoring) Requests Based on the recent history of traffic calming requests, the CACT and staff anticipate there will be more requests for traffic calming than there are resources to address those requests. However, this situation is typical of public programs. An equitable solution to address resource shortages is to develop guidelines to identify the cases of greatest need and to prioritize requests according to those guidelines. The existing program assigns scores based on traffic speed, accident history, and site distances. Additionally, the program uses the City s adopted Safe Routes to School and routes that have not been officially adopted, such as the Park Connectivity Plan and the Primary Routes to Metro. The group agreed to use measures of speed and volume in assessing cases. The group also agreed to use proximity to likely pedestrian generators, such as schools, parks, transit stations, and commercial areas. The intent of adding these features was not to proactively push traffic calming in these areas. Instead, the intent was to provide a means for giving priority to streets more likely to have higher pedestrian activity in the situation where there are two streets with equal levels of traffic speed and volume.

13 The group assigned an action item to staff to develop a draft scoring heuristic and present it to the CACT at a future meeting. Ultimately, the scoring will need to produce a valid means of prioritizing one case ahead of others, so it is important that scoring system be meaningful, valid, and acceptable to all stakeholders. Delineating CACT and Staff Responsibilities The existing program suffers because it lacks guidance on when to handle cases administratively versus taking them to the CACT. As a result, staff is currently erring on the side of promoting more public engagement. Thus all recent cases have been queued for the NTC Program, which takes two to four years to complete. This process is overly cumbersome for many cases. Delineating CACT and staff responsibilities will provide the policy guidance needed to handle some cases more quickly through administrative measures. In moving some requests from the CACT to staff, it is important to set the boundaries of what should and should not be handled administratively. This ensures that a fuller public engagement process is used when it is appropriate. The CACT and staff came to a general understanding that issues of traffic control and immediate safety concerns should be handled administratively. Whereas desires for intense construction and/or changes to the character of a street should use a full public engagement process. The group assigned an action item to staff to develop a draft mechanism for determining whether a case is administrative or not and to prepare several examples and present these materials to the CACT at a future meeting. Program Framework (Process Flow) The group agreed that the updated program should involve the same basic components as the existing program, including neighborhood application, data collection, collaboration on a potential solution, and neighborhood survey of the potential solution. The discussion focused on how to speed up the existing process and adding more definition where needed. The discussion took place in the context of expected program resources. The group agreed that a reasonable upper limit on funding was $200,000/year, and funding could be lower depending on the budget for a particular year. The group further agreed that staff resources for the Program were unlikely to increase. Given that limit, the group expects to be able to process one traffic calming request at a time. These two constraints further stress the importance of quickly delivering low-cost, but still effective, traffic calming solutions. Taking into account the expected funding and staffing constraints as well as all information from previous discussions about ways to improve upon the existing program, the group agreed to the following basic process for traffic calming requests.

14 Resident request Staff determines whether case should be handled adminsitrateively traffic control issue or immediate safety issue, staff handles case administrively larger change or neighborhood character change, applicant must get signatures from 51% of study area to proceed. Additionally neighborhood working group and neighborhood represnetative must be established staff collects data and adds neighborhood to rotation for police speed feedback trailer until case resolved request and data presented to CACT. based on the severity of the issues and likely effective solutions, the CACT determines whether case should use the "light" process or the "heavy" process. Based on the case score, the case is added to the appropriate space in the priority queue. Light solutions, including striping, signage, education. staff works with the neighborhood working group to develop a solution and installs it. No neighborhood survey required. Heavy solutions, including construction and changes to the character of the street. staff, the CACT, and the neighborhood working group collaborate to develop a solution. the solution is submitted for neighborhood survey. 67% of the neighborhood must support the soluition to proceed.

15 Neighborhood Engagement, Support for Change, and Voting Several points in the draft framework above require neighborhood input, support, and in some cases voting to proceed. The identified thresholds are intended to balance the desire to move quickly and the desire to ensure broad neighborhood support for changes in residential areas. The reasoning behind specific decisions was as follows: Administrative Cases: City staff has a responsibility to maintain streets that are safe for all users. Therefore, safety issues should be handled administratively provided they maintain the existing character of the street. Changes to Neighborhood Character: If the request involves changes to the inherent character of the street, then a majority of the neighborhood must agree that there is a desire for some change. Light Solutions: Light solutions include signs, striping, and education. The neighborhood traffic safety program, by its very nature, is intended to create a path for neighborhoods to change existing streets to increase accessibility for all modes of transportation. Given this policy support and the relatively inexpensive solutions available in this branch of the framework, if a majority of the neighborhood agrees that change is needed (indicated by the initial application) and the neighborhood working group agrees with the proposed changes, then these changes can be implemented without going to a neighborhood-wide survey. Heavy Solutions: Heavy solutions included construction and substantial changes to the character of the street. Because of the potential severity of these changes, any proposed changes require a neighborhood survey and 67% of the neighborhood must agree with the proposed change to proceed. All voting requirements are computed using a percentage of households in the study area. The group considered using number thresholds instead of percentages. However, study areas can range from as small as 3 households to as large as 30 or more. Given this broad range of sizes, the group agreed that percentages are the most workable thresholds. Neighborhood Working Group and Neighborhood Representative The draft framework calls for establishment of neighborhood working groups and a neighborhood representative. The intent of the program is to maximize public participation by allowing the group and representative to be self-selecting. Any and all neighborhood residents can join the working group. Residents will be asked to indicate whether they want to be on the working group at the time of signing the application. The working group will be responsible for identifying a single neighborhood representative. Among other things, the neighborhood representative will be responsible for communicating decisions of the working group to staff. This arrangement allows to the working group to establish its own mechanisms for decision making.

16 Rolling Applications The group agreed that the program should continue using the existing system of rolling applications. This prevents neighborhoods from being locked-out if they miss an application deadline. This is particularly important since most residents do not become aware of the NTC Program until they call to ask what can be done about traffic. Accepting rolling applications will not interfere with funding and staffing resources that restrict staff to working on one case at a time. For cases that go through either the light or heavy process, much of the early stages of the work must be conducted by the neighborhood itself. This includes gathering signatures, working the working group, and selecting a neighborhood representative. After an application with a sufficient number of signatures is submitted, a working group is established, and a neighborhood representative is identified, staff will proceed with data collection. After data is collected, it will be presented to the CACT. Based on the established scoring system, the CACT will assign a relative priority for addressing the case. Once the current case is resolve, staff will then proceed to address the highest priority pending case in the priority queue. Application Waiting Periods In most cases, applications can be filed at any time. However, there are two cases in which applications will be subject to a waiting period. The first such case is when a case for the same area was just completed. In this case, the neighborhood must wait one year before submitting another application. Staff will evaluate impacts of installed solutions one year after installation. If the neighborhood wants to make further changes, they can submit an application any time after this one year evaluation period. The second case in which an application will be subject to a waiting period is when a neighborhood could not reach a decision on how to proceed. In this case, the application for traffic calming will be dismissed and the neighborhood will be ineligible to reapply for two years. This mirrors provisions in the existing program. The intent of this provision is not to punish neighborhoods. Instead, the intent is to ensure staff resources are spent efficiently. If a neighborhood is unable to agree on how to proceed, then the two year waiting period will allow staff to address concerns from other neighborhoods before revisiting the same issues.

17 Public Engagement The NTC Program update was discussed at the following public meetings. May 14, 2014 CACT June 11, 2014 CACT July 7, 2014 City Council, work session July 9, 2014 CACT August 13, 2014 CACT September 10, 2014 CACT October 8, 2014 CACT The NTC website ( was maintained throughout the Program update with the latest information and meeting schedule.