Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2002_02_12_r024The Town of eesburg, ... irginia PRESENTED February 12, 2002 2002-2t, RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTED February 12, 2002 A RESOLUTION: ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE LEESBURG RESDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Resolution #2001-16 adopted the Residential Traffic Management Plan for the Town of Leesburg; and WHEREAS, the Standing Residential Traffic Committee recommended revisions to the Traffic Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Standing Residential Traffic Committee made a presentation to the Town Council at the Work Session on January 22, 2002 and distributed the proposed revisions to the report; and WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works recommends that the revisions to the Residential Traffic Management Plan proposed by the Standing Residential Traffic Committee be adopted. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The Town Council of the Town of Leesburg hereby adopts the attached revisions to the Residential Traffic Management Plan for the Town of Leesburg. PASSED this 12th day of February. 2002. Mayor Town of Leesburg R:ResTrafMgmPlanRev ELIZABETH D. WIIITING 241 Edwards Ferry Road NE Leesburg, Virginia 20176 (703) 777-6808 FAX (703) 777-2762 January 14, 2002 The Honorable B. J. Webb, Mayor P. O. Box 88 Leesburg, VA 20178 Standing Residential Traffic Committee Amendments to Residential Traffic Management Plan Dear Mayor Webb: I am writing on behalf of the Standing Residential Traffic Committee to forward proposed amendments to the Residential Traffic Management Plan, which was included in the September 2000 report by the Residential Traffic Task Force and approved by the Town Council as the charter guiding the Committee's work. In the course of evaluating projects brought to the Committee, we have determined that there are instances when traffic calming measures are appropriate even when speeding may not be the fundamental hazard presented to a residential neighborhood think of the sight distance problem at the intersection of Woodberry and Edwards Ferry, which posed a threat to Woodberry traffic no matter how compliant the Edwards Ferry driver or when the community rejected a trial mn of the enhanced fine for speeding. As presently drafted the Plan would preclude consideration of relief in such instances. The Committee reviewed solutions to these shortcomings and endorsed amendmems to the Residential Traffic Management Plan as shown on the attac~nt. Would you kindly forward our recommendation to the Town Council for consideration. Representatives of the Standing Residential Traffic Committee will be pleased to appear and respond to any questions regarding our recommendation. Attachment: As stated cc: Standing Residential Traffic Committee Members Part 2: RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN "Guiding principles" promoted by establishing a defined process for evaluating citizen requests for residential traffic calming measures: 1. Assure Council and citizens that requests are given even-handed, fair review; promote uniformity and predictability in outcome. 2. Provide Council and citizens with adopted criteria and justifications for evaluating requests, promoting confidence in the fairness of the process and decision-making. 3. Convene an advisory committee with the experience and background to assure recommendations are based upon appropriate factors. Summary of recommendations. The Task Force recommends a residential traffic management program consisting of the following elements: 1. Town Council adoption of an integrated program which sets criteria for evaluating requests and designates the staffing process and personnel. 2. Continued usc of town staff to receive, investigate and attempt to resolve requests and complaints regarding residential traffic, using the criteria and following the process adopted by thc Town Council. 3. Formation of a standing committee of town staff and interested citizens, with access to additional personnel and resources as needed, to act in an appellate capacity with regard to requests staff are unable to resolve and to help select and design traffic calming measures for qualifying projects. Sources: eligibility criteria, implementation procedures. Thc Task Force recommends adoption of procedures and criteria for implementing the various traffic calming measures discussed below that closely adhere to those used by VDOT, modified to suit the circumstances of the Town where we determined that VDOT criteria were too restrictive or otherwise missed the point. The particular process recommended for evaluating speeding complaints or traffic calming requests is derived from a program developed by Virginia Beach, tailored to fit the model we recommend for the Town. Although we have no reason to believe that either the VDOT or Virginia Beach models offer perfect approaches to solving Leesburg's residential traffic management problems, both have stood limited tests of time, which could not be said of any program developed from the ground up by the Task Force. While the Task Force recommends the creation of the committee in order to bring a wide perspective and expertise to determining residential traffic management requests, we have set up implementation procedures which bring the committee into the decision- making process at varying phases and which depend upon Town staff to take requests through various evaluation and implementation steps which do not require committee input, allowing for possible resolution of the identified problems without invoking the committee's jurisdiction. We anticipate that as these procedures are implemented and evaluated over time, the Town Council may wish to fine-tune them. Composition of advisory committee. Thc Task Force recommends that requests involving residential traffic management be processed under thc procedure we set out below. When physical traffic calming devices are warranted under this program, the advisory committee will be convened for evaluation, review and recommendation to the Town Council. The committee shall also evaluate and make recommendations to the Council regarding requests that cannot be resolved by town staff to the satisfaction of the complainants. a. Standing Committee membership: Town traffic engineers (adopted engineering, DCSM standards; 'warrants'; tolerance limits of any deviations from standard engineering norms); Town planner (familiarity with applicable comprehensive plan policies, goals; long range plans affecting the requesting neighborhood); police, fire & rescue (impact on emergency services); citizen representatives from all four quadrants of town; Council and Planning Commission liaison representatives. b. Expanded membership: Additional members could be added by the Council when appropriate, depending on circumstances: e.g., public school transportation; parks & recreation; public transportation provider. Short of formal appointment, town staff can develop a list of referral resources available to assist the committee, as appropriate. Committee jurisdiction. Requests to be referred to for evaluation: If efforts to control speeding or cut- through traffic by town staff following thc traffic calming steps in this article do not succeed in meeting program objectives, the problem street will be referred to the advisory committee for consideration of physical traffic calming devices. Determination of citizen support: Unless a citizen request is accompanied by some indication that it is widely supported by the neighborhood which would be affected, e.g., signed petitions, the committee will seek to determine how widely the perception of the identified problem is shared and what measures the neighborhoods most directly affected would support. When the solutions involve the diversion of traffic to other residential neighborhoods, the hnpact on such neighborhoods would also be assessed. Committee action; role of Council: The committee will evaluate requests using criteria approved by thc Council and forward recommendations for Council approval. Thc timing and funding of any project will continue to be set by thc Council, although thc committee may make recommendations regarding suggested priorities among residential traffic rnanagcmcnt projects. Eligibility criteria. The Task Force recommends thc following eligibility criteria identify streets that will qualify for consideration of traffic rnanagcmcnt measures under thc five programs &scribed belowS: (i) That the affected streets lie in a residence district as defined by Va. Code sec. 46.2-100; (ii) That they be classified as local streets or collectors, including through collectors; (iii) That they provide direct access to residential properties; (iv) That the speed limit be no greater than 25mph; and That thc neighborhood not be identified in thc Town Plan as appropriate for non-residential development or redevelopment. PROGRAM I. TRAFFIC CALMING= Definition. Traffic calming is defined as "the combination of physical and non-physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users." Traffic calming measures are tools which attempt to slow traffic within residential communities with minimal or no restriction to access. Purpose. The purpose of traffic calming is to address speeding conditions in residential neighborhoods. Goals: 1. Increase the Quality of Life. 2. Help reduce thc negative effects of motor vehicles on the environment. Objectives: ~ Note that eligibility requirements for the existing cut-through track restriction program, by identifying potentially eligible streets simply as local or collector streets, without more, allows consideration of restrictions in neighborhoods that would not qualify for any other program, including non-residential streets in the old and historic district. The Task recommends that the Town Council adopt a single eligibility standard for qualifying streets for further consideration under the Leesburg Residential Traffic Management Program, in order to ease administration burdens. The existing track restriction policy addresses problems presented by inappropriate truck traffic anywhere in town it occurs and would continue in effect as a program for streets which do not qualify under the residential program. 2 Requests for imposition of thc $200 add-on penalty authorized by Va. Code section 46.2-878.2 are subsumed into the recommended traffic miming program. 1. Achieve slower speeds for motor vehicles. 2. Reduce collision i~equency and severity. 3. Increase safety and perception of safety for non-motorized users of the transportation network. 4. Reduce the need for police enforcement. 5. Enhance the street environment and quality of life in residential neighborhoods. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Eligible streets. The streets must be eligible for consideration under the adopted eligibility criteria. Documented sfleed~ problems. The average speed is 31 m.p.h, or greater, or other ~bt__,t_es of the neighborhood present ._role_tv problems even at lower speeds. For. _~r___~_ ple, __~__ eme steepness, sharp curves, narrow wi~h, sing_Iv or in combination, which re~:ce sight distance for t~q~ers or others in the vicini~.. Initiation. The Traffic Calming Program will be initiated upon complaint of speeding in a residential neighborhood, request for $200 add-on penalties for speeding in a neighborhood, or when traffic calming measures are requested by one or more residents of a neighborhood or evaluation of the neighborhood for installation of such measures is requested by the Town Council. Program phases. The program will consist of sequential phases: 1. Document speeding or other problem. 2. Community awareness and education. 3. Selective enforcement. 4. Non-physical devices (increased fines). 5. Physical devices. Program evaluation. Each phase of the program will be evaluated for effectiveness. Evaluation will consist of a trat]fic study of the selected street. A baseline evaluation will be performed prior to implementing the program. The baseline study will document the traffic problem and establish benchmarks for evaluating program effectiveness. Follow- up studies will evaluate the success of each initiated phase. TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM PHASES Document speeding or other problem. All speeding problems and complaints are referred to the Leesburg Police Department for investigation and enforcement in accordance with their traffic complaint management program. (See chart in ,4ppendix E.) If the speeding complaints continue, the Police Department will refer the complaint to representatives of the Engineering and Public Works Department. l_tr the Police Department. _a~._~sment demonstrates the absence of a ~eed~g problem, ~_' ering and Public F?orlcs will investigat__¢ the ~o_'!e to determine whether other features present. safe_tF i&~es to the residents of the neighborhood Community awareness and education. Representatives of the Town Engineering and Public Works department will meet with neighborhood representatives to present and discuss the traffic calming program. The street and location for evaluation are selected. Baseline evaluation. Engineering and Public Works performs an appropriate speed study on the selected study area. If thc study reveals the average speed to be 31 m.p.h, or greater or the existence of other features presenting_ sqf_ e_tv problems, the project moves to the next phase. Selective enforcement (speeding problem). Engineering and Public Works refers the street to the Police Department for scheduling selective enforcement during the highest violation period. Selective enforcement will be conducted weekly for an eight week cycle. If a traffic study at the conclusion of the cycle reveals average speed to be 31 m.p.h, or greater, the project will move to the next phase. Follow-up study after 30 days will determine whether initial speeds remain below 31 m.p.h.; if not, the project will move to the next phase. Increased fine. If the average speeds continue at 31 m.p.h, or greater after selective enforcement, ne(ghborhood tr,,s/dents ,may- request that ~?n v?..~. be posted at the entrances to the neighborhood warning of a $200 fine for speed violations. At least 75% of the _affect_ed re~_,ot_ ts must demonstrate support jfor impo~ the enhanced j~ne be_fore r_,ch a request will be referred to the Town Council_for actior~ An eight week cycle of selective enforcement of the increased fine will be conducted, followed by a traffic study to determine if program compliance has been achieved. A follow-up study 30 days at~er an initial study showed compliance will determine whether the average speeds continue to remain below 31 m.p.h. Physical measures. If the average speed continues at 31 m.p.h, or greater after imposition of increased fines, the project will be referred to the committee for evaluation. In instances in which the under_~_ _problem is not speeding or when despite failure to implement the enha~d_fme, the committee concludes that azrfe_tF issues justin_ further consideran._'on, the committee will evaluate the street for installation o_f phv_sical measures, Residents requesting implementation of physical measures will be required to demonstrate support by 75% of neighborhood residents. The committee will approve the delineation of the neighborhood from which support must be drawn and the wording of the petition to be used, which will specify what physical measures are under consideration and the location(s) proposed for installation. Engineering and Public Works will be responsible for the design and installation of the physical devices and will perform a traffic study after installation to determine the effectiveness of the devices in reducing speeds in the affected neighborhood. An analysis of available physical measures, their benefits and drawbacks, and recommended uses ~-'~ '~'~' ..... ~:-~ is found in Part 3 of this report. PROGRAM II. CUT-THROUGH TRUCK RESTRICTIONS (Modeled after the existing policy adopted by the Town Council.) Eligible streets. The streets must be elig~lc for consideration under the adopted eligibility criteria.4 Requests for implementing through track restrictions shall be processed as follows: Public hearing. The Town Council will hold a legally advertised public hearing in accordance with the following steps: 1. The Council must initiate the public heating. 2. Public notices for the heating must comain a description of the route(s) with the same termini. 3. A public hearing shall be held by the Council and the public hearing record shall be held open for comments for a period of at least ten working days. 4. A copy of the public notice will be sent to Mr. L. Ray Ashworth, Virginia Tracking Association, 104 West Franklin Street, Suite D, Lexington Towers, Richmond, VA 23220 for distribution to the tmcldng industry and other interested parties. Traffic study. The Town will conduct a traffic engineering study to include: 1. Traffic volumes by vehicle type for the route(s) proposed for restriction and the proposed alternate route(s). The date(s) the data is collected shall be included. 2. A 12-hour origin/destination study of all tracks on the route(s) proposed for restriction. The date(s) the data is collected shall be included. 3. The number and percemage of "through tracks" on the route(s) proposed for restriction. The date(s) the data is collected shall be included. 4. An inventory of roadway characteristics and geometries for the route(s) proposed for restriction and the alternate route(s). This inventory should include: a. Roadway length in miles b. Pavement width c. Number of travel lanes ~ The Residential T~_ c Task Force never ranked device~ The Committee feels that devices will be evaluated in iieht of the goals of particular projects and that, in ~ event, any ranking in advance Of operational experience is of dubious utility. 4 See footnote 1. The existing Truck Restrictions policy will continue in effect and allows consideration of streets outside of the framework of the Residential Traffic Management Program. d. Shoulder width e. Pavement type and conditions £ Speed limit g. Number and type of cultural environment (i.e., residential and/or commercial) h. Vertical and horizontal alignment i. Parking restrictions and/or parking observed j. Accident data for the route(s) proposed for restriction and the alternate route(s) 5. The road requested for restriction is functionally classified as a local or collector street. Implementation; evaluation. Signs shall be erected at the end ofproposecl restricted routes to advise of the proposed restriction and identify an address for submitting written comments. Staff will compile information regarding the traffic engineering study and public comments and make a recommendation to the Town Council. If truck restrictions are warranted, an ordinance will be adopted by the Town Council and "no through trucks" signs will be installed at each end of the restricted routes. Enforcement will be conducted by the Leesburg Police Department. A request to rescind an existing "through truck" restriction shall be evaluated in accordance with the same procedures. PROGRAM III. RESIDENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC Definitions. Residential cut-through traffic is defined as tmffc passing through an identified residential area without stopping or without at least one trip end within the area. It is traffic that would be better served by the street system intended for through traffic but, for various reasons, uses the residential street system. Eligible streets are defined as streets meeting the eligibility criteria adopted by the Town Council as part of the Leesburg Residential Traffic Management Program. The primary use area consists of all local residential streets within a community likely to be affected by operational changes intended to divert traffic from one or more streets within the community or to any street that provides access to the community. Documentation of problem. Verification by Engineering and Public Works that cut- through traffic on the local residential street(s) in question is 40% or more of the total one hour, single direction volume, and that a minimum of 150 cut-through trips occur in one hour in one direction. The committee must identify alternative routes for through traffic before travel is restricted on the street(s) in question. After the committee identifies the applicable primary use area and approves the form of the petition to be used, the applicants must collect supporting signatures of at least 75% of the total occupied households. Roadway network study. Once elig~ility standards have been satisfied, Engineering and Public Works will conduct a study of the roadway network, which may include Detailed traffic counts on affected streets and potentially affected areas. Intersection analyses of proposed alternate routes. Identification of potential adverse safety impacts. Identification of the geometries of existing facilities in light of the traffic analysis. Speed analyses on the affected streets. Pedestrian circulation and safety analyses in the study area. Insure that alternate routes meet Town Level of Service Standards. The findings and recommendations of Engineering and Public Works will be forwarded to the committee for its evaluation. Implementation process. If the committee recommends implementation of remedial measures to divert cut-through traffic, the following procedures will be followed: The Town Council and local media will be notified of the action to be taken and the expected effective date. Signs placed on the affected street(s) will outline the impending action and give the name and telephone number of a person in Engineering and Public Works who can be contacted with questions. Remedial measures will be installed, and may constitute temporary installations until their effectiveness can be assessed. Remedial measures which may be used are discuss in Part 3. Additional measures may include closing the street to through traffic at certain times of day, restricting turn movements into or out of the street, etc. Evaluation. Not sooner than 30 days or later than six months after measures have been in place, Engineering and Public Works will re-study the roadway network and forward findings and recommendations to the committee which will report its recommendations for continuation of the remedial measures to the Town Council for final disposition. PROGRAM IV. MULTIWAY STOPS Eligibility. The streets must be eligible for consideration under the adopted eligibility criteria. Implementation process. Requests for installation of multiway stop signs in residential neighborhoods shall be referred for recommendation by the committee unless Engineering and Public Works determines that such signs are warranted under the standards set out in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), in which case they will be installed without referral. Engineering and Public Works will review the affected streets and identify any potential safety problems that would preclude installation of the signs. Applicants for installation of the signs shall demonstrate support by not less than 75% of the affected community by signature to a petition. The Department of Engineering and Public Works will post a sign at intersections which states "All-way stop proposed for this intersection. For information call (703) 777-2420." The area to be canvassed for support and the wording of the petition shall be approved in advance by the committee. Committee recommendation. Multiway stop sign requests shall be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria: · Multiway stops should be installed not more fxequently than at intersections between 800 to 1000 feet apart. · Multiway stops should not be installed unless at least 3 approaches are public streets. · Priority should be given to intersections having: a. Sight distance problems b. High accident history c. Intersections with other major streets in the community d. High pedestrian activity Evaluation. The effectiveness of multiway stop signs will be evaluated at 30 days and 6 months after installation. No recommendation to remove the signs will be forwarded for action by the Town Council until residems of the affected neighborhood have been notified and be given an opportunity to present their position to the committee. PROGRAM V. "WATCH FOR CHILDREN" SIGNS Eligibili~. The streets must be eligible for consideration under the adopted eligibility criteria. Request. Requests by residents or referred by the Town Council. Installation. Engineering and Public Works shall install "Watch for Children" signs upon request in qualifying neighborhoods except where, due to circumstances such as the number of signs competing for attention or proximity to an intersection or other traffic controls, such signs would increase the danger to pedestrians because of driver distraction. "Watch for children" signs should be installed only on key entry streets into residential areas. The committee would be involved only upon denial of a request if the requesting residem asked for review.