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.