The Fargo Traffic Calming Demonstration Study involved researching, evaluating, analyzing, laying out and implementing traffic calming measures. The Bluemont Lakes community was selected for the demonstration study in response to numerous concerns expressed by residents to the City of Fargo (City) regarding traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. Similar concerns have also been expressed by other neighborhoods in Fargo. The following report documents the process that resulted in the implementation of temporary traffic calming measures in Bluemont Lakes.

The purpose of this study was:

• to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming measures in modifying volumes and speeds;
• to identify a process to be followed in the future, in the event that the City adopted a traffic calming policy; and
• to study, and possibly implement, appropriate traffic calming measures.

Traffic calming is defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1997) as "the combination of mainly physical features that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorized street users". Traffic calming measures are generally used to reduce traffic volumes and/or reduce vehicle speeds on local residential and collector streets.

2.0  Bluemont Lakes Neighborhood

The Bluemont Lakes neighborhood was selected for this demonstration study. Bluemont Lakes is a relatively new neighborhood in southwest Fargo (see Figure 1). The neighborhood is substantially complete, however, portions of the neighborhood to the north and west were still under development during the course of this study. The street selected to serve as the collector for the neighborhood, 23^rd Avenue, is located on the periphery and forms the northern and western boundary. Typically, collector streets tend to be within a neighborhood, allowing traffic from the local streets to be directed towards the collector and then to the adjacent arterial street system. In this case, the designated collector street is on the periphery of the neighborhood and was one of the last streets developed.

Given the layout of the neighborhood, the two streets that have the appearance of collectors, in terms of neighborhood form, are 26^th Avenue SW and 32^nd Street SW. Another factor possibly aggravating the high speed and traffic volume situation on 26^th Avenue is a commercial development at the northwest corner of 25^th Street South and 32^nd Avenue SW. No private approaches exist along 32^nd Avenue SW or along much of 25^th Street South. The only approaches on 25^th Street South are near the northern end of the development, primarily directed towards a bank and office building, although access to the retail component of the shopping center is also available. Most of the approaches serving the shopping center are directed towards 27^th Street SW. During busy periods, traffic may divert to 27^th Street SW, proceeding north to 26^th Avenue SW and then proceeding easterly to make use of the traffic signal at 25^th Street South and 26^th Avenue SW. The traffic signal at 25^th Street/26^th Avenue was the only signal-controlled intersection along 25^th Street (within the study area) at the start of the study.

The attractiveness of 26^th Avenue SW is in part due to the fact that it was the only street in the neighborhood featuring traffic signal control at its intersection with 25^th Street. This contributes to 26^th Avenue SW functioning as a collector, even though it is officially designated as a local street.

During a site visit, a series of photographs were taken to illustrate some of the features of the neighborhood that may be contributing to the traffic and speed concerns on 26^th Avenue SW.

Photo A looks east on 26^th Avenue SW towards the traffic signal at 25^th Street South. The presence of this traffic signal may be attracting additional traffic to 26^th Avenue SW.

Photo B looks at 26^th Avenue SW easterly from 32^nd Street SW. Although a local street, the pavement width is sufficient to allow for both on-street parking and two traffic lanes. Pavement width, coupled with the relatively low volumes experienced during some portions of the day and the long tangent sections, increase the chances of excessive vehicle speeds occurring on this street.

Photo C looks east on 23^rd Avenue SW, the designated collector street for the area, towards 25^th Street South. Its designation as a collector street is evident here with regards to the pavement width, which is sufficient to allow parking on both sides of the street and two traffic lanes. As with many of the other streets in the neighborhood, the long tangent sections, combined with relatively light volumes and wide street pavements, may encourage excessive speed.

Recognizing neighborhood traffic concerns, intersections along 25^th Street South were examined by the City to determine if traffic signals were needed. Warrants for signalization were met at two intersections, 25^th Street South at 23^rd Avenue SW and 25^th Street South at 30^th Avenue SW. The traffic signals were installed in 1999. The signal at 30^th Avenue SW encourages traffic from the commercial centre to make use of 30^th Avenue SW as opposed to 26^th Avenue SW. The signal at 23^rd Avenue offers residents in the northern portion of Bluemont Lakes an alternative to 26^th Avenue. Implementation of the two signals and information regarding changes to speed and volume within the neighborhood are discussed later in the report.

Figure 1: Study Area

Photos A to C

The Bluemont Lakes Association and the 26^th Avenue SW Neighborhood Traffic Committee have both been active in bringing resident traffic concerns to the attention of the City. Residents have expressed concern over both traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. The speed concern led the neighborhood to contact Fargo Police to place a speed display board on 26^th Avenue. The display board appeared to moderate speeds, but only until the speed unit was removed.

These concerns in part led to the selection of Bluemont Lakes, and more specifically, 26^th Avenue SW, by the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (COG) and the City as the site for a traffic calming demonstration study.

2.3  Speed and Volume Data

The City of Fargo undertook traffic volume and speed measurements on 26^th Street SW between 27th and 32nd Streets SW in May 1998. The 24-hour volume was approximately 1,800 vehicles per day (vpd), with a two-way peak hour volume of approximately 220 vehicles per hour. It was found that the average speed was just over 27 miles per hour (mph) compared to the posted speed limit of 25 mph; 47% of the traffic exceeded the speed limit, with an 85^th percentile speed of 30.5 mph. The 85^th percentile speed is the speed that is exceeded by 15% of vehicles and is a common measurement used to identify an appropriate speed limit for a section of roadway. One concern with the May 1998 measurements was that construction activity on the street might have distorted the results.

In the spring of 1999, traffic counts and speed measurements were taken throughout the Bluemont Lakes area in order to determine average daily traffic volumes, average speeds and 85^th percentile speeds. This information provided base values for quantifying changes to speed and volume after the implementation of two new traffic signals along 25^th Street South at 23^rd and 30^th Avenue SW. The spring 1999 traffic counts and speed measurements are illustrated in Figure 2.

2.4  Collision Data

As part of the Traffic Calming Demonstration Study, a collision review analysis on 26^th Avenue SW was undertaken. Accident data from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1998 was received from the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) for both intersection and mid-block collisions. In total, 14 accidents have been reported in the past four years within the Bluemont Lakes neighborhood. These accidents involved 29 vehicles and resulted in 11 injuries. No fatalities occurred.

Figure 2: Traffic Volumes and Speeds

The following data was compiled during the collision review:

• 50 percent of accidents occurred during dry road conditions;
• 29 percent took place during icy conditions;
• 21 percent took place during wet conditions;
• 12 accidents occurred during daylight hours;
• Seven accidents were rear-end collisions;
• Four accidents were angle collisions;
• One accident was head-on; and
• One accident involved a pedestrian.

Of the 14 accidents recorded in the Bluemont Lakes neighbourhood:

• One accident occurred on 25^th Street South, south of 26^th Avenue SW;
• One accident occurred on 26^th Avenue SW, east of 25^th Street South;

• 12 accidents occurred along 26^th Avenue SW between 25^th Street South and 32^nd Street SW, three occurred mid-block while nine took place at intersections; and
• Eight of the nine intersection accidents along 26^th Avenue SW took place at the intersection of 26^th Avenue SW and 25^th Street South; and five of these involved vehicles that were not entering or leaving the Bluemont Lakes neighborhood (through traffic).

Previous COG studies define high accident locations as those locations where a minimum of 15 accidents occur over a period of three years. Since a total of 14 accidents occurred over a four-year period throughout the entire Bluemont Lakes neighborhood, no high accident locations exist in the study area.

Seven of the accidents involved Bluemont Lakes vehicle traffic. Two of the accidents occurring on 26^th Avenue SW were reportedly due to excessive speed. One of these took place during adverse weather conditions (snow) and the other involved a drunk driver. Eight of twelve accidents (67 percent) were due to driver distraction and/or failure to yield to traffic controls. Four accidents occurred in four years on 26^th Avenue SW between 25^th Street South and 32^nd Street SW. Two of these took place while backing out of a driveway.

2.5  New 25^th Street South Traffic Signals

A second set of traffic counts and speed measurements were undertaken in the fall of 1999 to gauge the impact of two new traffic signals installed along 25^th Street South at 23^rd and 30^th Avenue SW. Traffic counts and speed measurements from the spring and fall of 1999 are illustrated in Figure 3.

Several changes to speed and volume were noted between the spring and fall of 1999, following the installation of the traffic signals:

• At 23^rd Avenue SW 2900 block, average daily traffic (ADT) increased 40% while the average speed decreased 1.1%;
• At 27^th Street SW 2900 block, ADT decreased 16% while the average speed increased 3.3%;
• At 25^th Avenue South 2900 block, ADT decreased 19% while the average speed decreased 0.3%;
• At 26^th Avenue SW 3000 block, ADT decreased 24% while the average speed increased 11%;
• At 32^nd Street SW 2400 block, ADT increased 33% while the average speed increased 13%; and
• At 32^nd Street SW 2800 block, ADT decreased 7% while the average speed increased 1.8%.

The change in the 85^th percentile speed between the spring and fall periods of 1999 for these same locations ranged from a low of -4.8% on 27^th Street 2900 block to a high of +12.0% on 32^nd Street 2800 block.

The installation of the new traffic signals resulted in unexpected changes. Traffic was redistributed to take advantage of the new signals, especially at 23^rd Avenue SW. The traffic volumes fall within City guidelines, however, speeds are higher than desirable in some locations. The focus on traffic calming was therefore on measures that might reduce speeds. The largest speed increases were on 26^th Avenue SW, and on 32^nd Street SW (north of 26^th Avenue SW). The Review Committee therefore directed the consultant to now consider traffic calming measures at both these locations (as opposed to the originally envisioned 26^th Avenue SW only).

Figure 3: Traffic Volumes and Speeds

3.0  Overview of traffic calming

3.1  Definition

A definition of traffic calming was established by the sub-committee on traffic calming of the Institute of Transportation Engineers in 1997: "traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical features that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorized street users". This definition was also adopted for a recent guide prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Transportation Association of Canada entitled "Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming" (December 1998).

Traffic calming measures are typically applied to reduce traffic volumes and/or reduce vehicle speeds, primarily on neighborhood local residential streets, but to a certain extent on collector streets as well. Measures can include vertical and horizontal deflections in roadways as well as obstructions and traffic regulations. Examples, illustrated in Figure 4, include speed bumps, raised intersections, traffic circles, curb extensions and diverters. Used alone, or in combination, these measures can be effective in reducing vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, thereby reducing vehicular/pedestrian conflicts and improving the environment of the neighborhood streets. However, measures must be carefully considered in order to minimize potential negative impacts, including reduction of mobility for local residents and increases in emergency vehicle response times.

3.2  Summary of Telephone Survey and Literature Search

Phone surveys of other jurisdictions with traffic calming experience were conducted in July and August of 1999 and followed up in April of 2000. The intent of the phone surveys was to provide background information on traffic calming requirements, community involvement and to identify any problems experienced in other jurisdictions. The following bullets provide a summary of highlights and common themes in other U.S. and Canadian cities with traffic calming experience (A complete summary is available in Appendix B). The survey of the additional Canadian cities was, in part, to include additional locations that experience winter conditions similar to Fargo.

• Ten cities were contacted: Baltimore, St. Paul, Fairfax County, Austin, Kuna, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Portland, and Appleton.
• All city representatives indicated that the speed limit associated with traffic calming measures is 25 mph, as set by State law. In fact, speed limits cannot be set below 25 mph.

Figure 4: Traffic Calming Measures

• In those cities where speeding is a problem, traffic calming measures are typically instituted when the 85^th percentile speed is at least 5 mph over the posted speed limit.

• Traffic calming measures have been instituted due to problems with speeding in 8 out of 10 surveyed cities. Problems with volumes and shortcutting traffic were noted in 4 out of the 10 cities and issues of speeding and traffic volume problems were dealt with in 5 out of the 10 cities.
• Eight of the 10 cities contacted have some kind of process involving city approval, as well as local community or neighborhood meetings or public open houses. Seven out of the ten cities require that a petition be distributed and a vote undertaken where the majority of residents must vote in favour (each city had different levels of majority, from a simple 50%+1 up to 75%). Three of the cities indicated that strict functional criteria have to be met on local residential streets before traffic calming measures are considered.
• No special legislation is required to implement traffic calming measures in any of the cities contacted.
• Funding sources for traffic calming measures include: portion of gas tax revenue (4 of the cities); general city budget (4); neighborhood levy (3) and citywide levy (1).
• No liability issues due to traffic calming measures were identified in any of the cities contacted.
• Three instances were noted where an effort was made to include emergency response representatives in the planning process for traffic calming measures. In two other instances, cities reported that there have been no problems with emergency response times because emergency departments know where the devices are located. In two instances, it was indicated that the city’s emergency response people were not partial to traffic calming devices on residential streets.
• The types of traffic calming measures implemented include: speed bumps (5); traffic circles (5); median/pedestrian islands (4); chicanes (2); lane narrowing (2); education (2); bump outs (2); partial street closures (2); chokers; textured surfaces; visual treatments; basket weave stop signs; all-way stops; striping and signing.
• Traffic calming measures have been viewed positively in 7 of the 10 cities. One city has had a mixed reaction to their traffic calming efforts while two other cities had just started their programs.
• Two of the ten cities contacted (St. Paul and Appleton) noted that there are some issues to deal with in winter street maintenance. For example, St. Paul noted that traffic circles are difficult to plow around while Appleton noted that bump outs can cause some snow plowing problems.

• Six cities in Canada were contacted: Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Kanata, and Toronto.
• Problems of speeding and volumes were mentioned as reasons for implementing traffic calming in all cities except in Toronto (emphasis is on speeding).
• Three out of the six cities that mentioned speeding problems stated that they target those speeders in the 85th percentile range.
• A variety of methods are used to involve the public, from community meetings, letter drops, open houses, newsletters, and public hearings. Three of the cities contacted require a certain level of approval from neighbouring residents in support of traffic calming (e.g., a slim majority, two-thirds majority based on a 30% response rate, and a rate of 60% in favour of those residents responding).
• All cities indicated that traffic calming measures are funded from general revenues or capital budgets; one city indicated that they would be reviewing how future measures would be funded.
• One city indicated that they have had to deal with some liability claims because of vehicles hitting a particular measure; however, the claims have usually been in the $500 range and have principally involved taxis.
• Emergency response representatives are usually consulted during the design process for implementing traffic calming measures so they are aware of what is being proposed and efforts are made to minimize any problems.
• Every city has to deal with winter street maintenance issues. Usually, the maintenance people do not particularly care for traffic calming measures (i.e., speed humps, curb outs), as they require extra care and more attention to snow plowing. Two of the cities indicated that their traffic calming measures are signed extensively so that maintenance crews know where they are located. No major problems were noted in any of the cities.
• The types of traffic calming measures implemented include: partial and full road closures; diagonal diverters; channelizations; multi-way stops; center medians; road narrowing; speed humps; chokers; cul de sacs; and curb extensions or curb bulbs.

The literature search included books, magazines and web sites with information concerning traffic calming. The main outcome of the literature search was a table describing the advantages and disadvantages of different traffic calming devices. The resources used in the literature search are documented in the bibliography.

A recent survey of 61 city traffic engineers in the U.S. and Canada indicated that a majority of jurisdictions require a level of neighborhood support greater than 60% before a request for traffic calming becomes eligible for further investigation.

4.0  public participation

4.1  Review Committee

The Fargo traffic calming Review Committee consisted of the following seven representatives:

• Bruce Furness, Mayor, Fargo City Commission
• Arlette Preston, Fargo City Commission
• Brian Shorten, Fargo-Moorhead Council of Governments
• Richard Lane, Fargo Engineering
• Cindy Gray, Fargo Planning
• Tom Schaffer, Bluemont Board
• Dan Geffre, Bluemont Lakes – 26^th Avenue

Six review meetings took place between June 1999 and December 2000. Representatives from other interested parties were also in attendance at some or all of the meetings, including representatives from Fargo Operations, Fargo Engineering, Fargo Fire Department, Fargo Police Department, Fargo Forum, Fargo Attorney’s Office, NDDOT and other residents (including from other neighborhoods).

4.2  Community Involvement

4.2.1  Walkabout

A walkabout was held in the Bluemont Lakes neighborhood on June 23, 1999, from 5:15 to 7:30 p.m. The consultant and members of the Review Committee initially met with residents at the cul-de-sac opposite the intersection of 26^th Avenue SW and 27^th Street SW. Twenty-two residents met with the study team during the walkabout.

The consultant provided an overview of the project and various traffic calming options to the residents at the beginning of the walkabout. Approximately 15 residents were at the cul-de-sac for the overview and subsequent discussion. Other residents joined in along the route as the study team members walked from the cul-de-sac to and from 32^nd Street SW along 26^th Avenue SW. The following are some of the comments offered by residents:

• Concern was raised with the signing at the cul-de-sac at the intersection of 26^th Avenue SW and 27^th Street SW. The street sign located at the northwest corner does not clearly indicate that the addresses in the cul-de-sac are on 26^th Avenue SW rather than 27^th Street SW, as is implied by the way the signs are placed. City staff agreed to review whether the sign for 27^th Street SW could be relocated to the south side of the intersection.
• A new resident on 26^th Avenue SW expressed concern over the amount and speed of traffic, which was quite a bit higher than he had expected prior to moving in. He noted observing vehicles that seemed to be travelling as high at speeds as 45 mph and stated he would be open to any changes along 26^th Avenue SW that might reduce speeds.
• Some residents clearly indicated a preference for no speed humps in the street.
• One resident recommended that camera enforcement be used as the traffic calming measure.
• It was noted that the installation of the two new signals should modify traffic patterns in the neighborhood and may reduce traffic volumes on 26^th Avenue SW as well as other neighborhood streets.
• Questions were raised on how to approve and pay for traffic calming. What percentage of the residents would have to be in favour in order to implement permanent traffic calming measures? Would measures be a local assessment or a city at large cost? Residents noted that they had already paid for the traffic signals on 26^th Avenue SW and 25^th Street South as a local assessment and given that this has aggravated the problems on 26^th Avenue SW, why should they now have to pay to improve conditions? City staff noted that most localized improvements in Fargo were undertaken on an assessment basis but that it would be up to the City Commission to determine how permanent measures would be funded.
• Other residents noted that they would be willing to pay an assessment if there was a perceived benefit to the neighborhood and suggested that it be included as part of the survey questionnaire distributed in the neighborhood during the study.
• The study team noted that 26^th Avenue SW is the demonstration study right now and it does not guarantee that permanent measures may be in place, depending on the effectiveness and reaction in the community. However, if the measures prove successful, other streets within the neighborhood may also be considered for traffic calming, as well as streets in other neighborhoods in the city.
• Traffic circles and curb extensions were viewed favorably by many of the residents present; however, there were mixed feeling about speed humps.
• The impact of curb extensions was demonstrated on the street approximately mid block between 27th and 32nd Street SW where two construction vehicles were parked on opposite sides of the street at the same location. It was observed that vehicles approaching the two trucks generally slowed down as they moved to the center of the street, even though sufficient room existed.
• A resident noted that there were 60 to 70 children on the block of 26th Avenue SW between 27th and 32nd Street SW who often play on the sidewalk or driveway and occasionally venture onto the street. As such, parents were quite concerned with both volumes and speeds on the street.
• One parent noted that her child’s pedal car rolled down the driveway into the street and was immediately struck by a car, which appeared to be speeding.
• A resident noted that the 2900 block of 32^nd Street SW is also a problem, as vehicles speed up significantly once they pass through the "S curve" immediately south of this location.
• A concern raised at the 26^th Avenue SW/32^nd Street SW intersection was that vehicles do not stop at the stop signs.

4.2.2  Newsletters, Information Package and Surveys

Information was provided to, and received from, Bluemont Lakes residents through newsletters, information packages and surveys. The newsletters were part of the continuing public consultation program used in the demonstration project to provide residents with information and to solicit their input.

Newsletter #1 (September 1999) provided information on the study background, defined traffic calming and provided an information package that included examples of different types of traffic calming measures and a summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Also included with the newsletter was a survey. The survey contained questions relating to whether residents supported the project, how they felt about local assessments for the project, and whether they agreed or disagreed with certain traffic calming measures.

The second newsletter (February 2000) was circulated after the second round of traffic counts and speed measurements were undertaken following completion of construction activity along 25th Street and installation of the two new traffic signals. The newsletter provided an update on the project and included survey results from Newsletter #1 as well as updated traffic volume and speed information.

The third newsletter (November, 2000) was distributed after the temporary traffic calming measures were installed in August 2000. The newsletter was circulated to 346 more residences than the first two newsletters. The additional residences are located in the northwest corner of the study area.

The third newsletter summarized and compared traffic volume and speed measurements taken after implementation of the temporary traffic claming measures with data collected before implementation. The newsletter included photo renderings that illustrated how permanent traffic calming installations could look. Attached to each newsletter was a survey that asked for feedback and attempted to gauge support for the various measures.

Copies of the newsletters can be found in the appendix.

4.2.3  Community Feedback

Community feedback was received through the walkabout at the outset of the study, responses to the two surveys, and input from resident representatives at the Review Committee meetings.

The first survey was attached to Newsletter #1. The results are summarized in Table 1. Survey responses from residents on 26^th Avenue SW were compiled separately from the other responses. Of the 475 surveys distributed, 151 were returned (32%). This is a high response for a mail-in survey. In general, residents supported the concept of the traffic calming demonstration study with 86% approval on 26^th Avenue SW and 71% approval among the remaining respondents.

Residents were asked to identify what they perceive as traffic problems in the neighborhood. Among the 26^th Avenue SW residents that responded:

• 75% indicated that speed and volume were both problems;
• 11% identified speed;
• 7% picked volume; and
• 4% indicated that there were no problems.

Of the respondents in the surrounding area:

• 41% indicated that speed and volume were problems;
• 38% identified speed;
• 7% picked volume; and
• 12% indicated that there were no problems.

The percentages are based on the total number of surveys returned, however, not all questions were answered on all surveys.

A majority of 26^th Avenue SW respondents indicated that a level of 50% + 1 should be used (39%), followed by a level of 67% (18%), a level of 75% (18%) and some other level (14%). Of the other respondents, 37% indicated that a level of 50% + 1 should be used, followed by a level of 67% (26%), a level of 75% (23%) and some other level (7%).

Most of the respondents on 26^th Avenue SW indicated that support for the traffic calming measures should be based on only those residents who live on the affected local residential street (82%). A majority of respondents (64%) indicated that they would support a local assessment for the installation of traffic calming measures, while 36% would not support such an assessment.

Respondents on other streets were evenly split on who should pay for traffic calming measures. 38% indicated that support for the traffic calming measures should be based on only those residents who live on the affected local residential street.

Unlike the 26^th Avenue SW respondents, a majority of respondents (63%) in the surrounding area indicated that they would not support a local assessment for the installation of traffic calming measures, 37% indicated that they would support such an assessment.

Other comments were received with the survey responses. Typical comments are summarized below.

• Should wait and see what the affect of the new installed signals will be on neighborhood.
• Speeding at night is a problem.
• Poor street design has added to the traffic problems.
• Need more maximum speed signs and regular police enforcement.
• There is not much of a problem.
• (Traffic calming) will create spillover effects onto other streets.
• Assessment should apply to 26^th Avenue residents only.
• Must consider both 32^nd Street SW and 26^th Avenue SW for traffic calming to work.
• 80 to 90% of traffic problems are (due to) local residents.

4.3  Presentations

A presentation was made to the Fargo City Commission in February 2001 summarizing the study process and the conclusions.

5.0  Review of traffic calming measures

A phone survey of other American cities was conducted on July 6, 1999 and a follow-up survey with other American and Canadian cities on August 20, 1999 to collect information on their experiences with traffic calming in local residential areas. The following information was noted:

Mr. Murphy indicated that they have been implementing traffic calming measures for the last two and a half years. They usually use speed bumps. Measures have been instituted because of speed and some volume problems. Because speed limits are a state responsibility, speeds can’t be set below 25 mph. They have tried to get around this by putting up advisory speed signs of 15 to 20 mph for the speed bumps (use the 85th percentile). The department usually sits down to meet with the community. A petition is required with a 70% support level before any measure is carried forward. The measures are funded through a portion of gas tax receipts out of the total motor vehicle revenues collected. They have encountered no liability issues so far because of the strict criteria local streets have to meet to initially qualify for a traffic calming measure. Their overall experience with these measures has been pretty good to date.

They have just commenced a pilot program with VDOT on traffic calming, using a variety of measures including chokers, median islands, circles etc. Fairfax County is one of few places where the State Agency DOT owns and maintains all the roads in the county. The measures are being instituted mainly in response to speeding problems. Usually, speeds range 5 mph over the posted limit (the 85th percentile speeds). Their process begins with a request for traffic calming measures being made to the local supervisor. The streets have to meet certain criteria before traffic calming measures can be implemented (i.e., volumes of between 600 and 3,000 vehicles per day). The petition area (the area directly affected by the measure) and a larger impacted area are invited to form a task force committee. Residents in the petition area are given a petition form which requires 75% of the local residents to approve of a traffic calming measure. Residents in the larger impacted area do not get a vote. A policy manual is available and they will be sending us a copy.

There are no speed limits that are set for traffic calming measures, as the limits are set by state authorities. Traffic calming measures have been instituted to address both speed and volume issues. Speeding problems have been in the range of the high 30's (mph), or the 85th speed percentile. Depending on the device implemented, they have seen a 5 to 10 mph reduction in speeds. The department has a process whereby the target area is subject to a comprehensive study. A letter is sent out to invite residents to a general meeting to describe the process and set up a working group to work with staff. Any measures proposed are shared at a public open house, which then goes to a vote (all or nothing). They require that there be a 20 to 25% response, and that of those 60% be in favour. Measures are funded from a general city fund and no special legislation exists. To date, there have been no liability problems. Emergency response representatives are included in the study process. A previous speed bump program for residential streets has been replaced by speed cushions, that allow the larger emergency vehicles to straddle them. An inclusive process has been in operation for two years now. Overall, they have had very good experience. There have been few accidents as a result of any of the measures implemented. She indicated that the city will be doing so follow-up on this in the fall. The types of measures used include circles, neck downs, partial street closures, chicanes, speed bumps, medians with cushions, imprints or textured surfaces and, in some cases, all-way stops.

They have been using road bumps, with speeds going down to between 20 and 25 mph. Traffic calming measures have been implemented mostly because of speed problems, usually 2 to 12 mph over the speed limit, and some volume issues. Any measures has to reduce the speed limit down below 35 mph. It is up to the local neighbourhood to decide if they are going to go ahead, with a petition requiring 75% approval. A traffic study is then undertaken. The street where traffic calming is to be implemented requires volumes of 1,000 vehicles per day and 100 cars per peak hour. Their process involves public meetings and the proposed measure must go through the County Commission’s approval process. The department also tries to get the neighbourhood involved through a program called Operation Speed Watch. The purpose is to teach people how to document speeders going through their neighbourhood. The measures are funded through the capital budget and a neighbourhood enhancement levy. Which funding measure is used depends on whether the street meets the criteria set down by the Commissioners. If the issue to be addressed is solely for cut-through traffic, then the neighbourhood would have to pay a portion. They are not aware of any liability issues associated with traffic calming to date. Emergency response units are not partial to these devices on residential streets. Overall, the program measures have been good for dealing with traffic issues. A copy of their traffic calming policy was faxed over.

The Neighbourhood Traffic Program, which has been in operation for 10 years, is primarily concerned with volume issues. They may look at speed thresholds if speeding problems are noted over 25 mph (e.g., 26 to 31 mph). The city has a detailed procedure process (a copy was faxed over). Traffic calming measures are funded through a traffic mitigation fund from tax revenues and are cost shared (i.e., City 90%, residents 10%). No special legislation is required for implementing traffic calming. To date there have been no liability issues. In some cases, the police have complained about running into problems with chicanes. The department checks with emergency response people early on the process to try and get their feedback. Phoenix has a lot of cut-through traffic and speeding. Overall, the program has been viewed as very good.

Speed bumps are used in Las Vegas. Traffic calming measures are used to deal with speeding issues for the most part and some cut-through traffic. A volume of 800 vehicles per day is required for measures to be instituted. If speeds get above 35 mph, then they will start to consider measures to deal with speeding. A petition is required with at least 10 adjacent property owners before traffic studies can begin under the Traffic and Parking Commission. If the Commission approves it, the measure goes to City Council for a public hearing and then final approval. Traffic calming measures are funded out of the general budget (approximately $100,000 per year). No other special legislation is required. To date, no liability issues have arisen. They have noticed no problems with measures on local residential streets in relation to emergency response times. The emergency response people know where these traffic calming measures are located. They have been using this program for four or five years and it seems to be working.

Speed limits are set according to state standards. Traffic calming has been undertaken to deal with primarily speeding problems. They have a Neighbourhood Management Program that works with the community to address their issues based on feedback from an initial survey. The city first proposes some less drastic measures such as signing, striping, visual treatments (i.e., trimming trees), and education with radar speed boards. They would also start with posting speed limit boards of 25 mph. If any of these measures don’t seem to work, a second survey is sent out to residents inviting their input on more restrictive measures (i.e., speed bumps, pedestrian islands, circles etc.). For Phase 1 measures, 25% of residents must return a ballot, and of that a simple majority of 50% plus 1 is required for implementation. For the more restrictive measures, the city requires that one-third of the ballots be returned with a two-thirds majority. A speed bump program also involves a petition requiring a two-thirds majority of affected residents. The street has to meet specified functional criteria before any proposed measure is implemented. Traffic calming measures are funded through a portion of the state gas tax and a .25% tax on transportation measures that is levied city-wide. The city has just doubled the budget for the speed bump program, from $100,000 to $200,000. Their overall experience with the programs has been good. They have been implementing traffic calming measures since 1980 and more and more neighbourhoods now want to participate in the program. A copy of their program is being mailed-out.

With traffic calming measures, speed limits are set at 25 mph. Usually, measures have been introduced to deal with speeding problems. Before measures are considered, the street needs to have speeds of at least 5 mph over the posted speed limit (or 85th percentile). The city also tries to educate drivers. Once a project street has been identified, the city conducts a ballot where a super majority of 66% is required before traffic calming is implemented. City Council has approved of the overall program and procedures and gives final approval to any proposed traffic calming measure. The measures are funded through a share of the state gas tax. No liability issues have arisen from the measures instituted and there have been no problems with emergency response times. This latter issue has also been addressed through a policy approach for the program. Traffic calming has been undertaken since the mid 1980s and it is viewed very positively.

The city has only recently started implementing traffic calming measures. They have tried speed humps on some residential streets but have since taken them out because residents have complained about them. It was also discovered that the local residents themselves were the ones causing the speeding problems. The department is now experimenting with median islands, street closures, and bump outs. They also want to try experimenting with modest size traffic circles. Measures are being introduced to deal mostly with volume and some speed problems. If speeding is the problem, they have been targetting the 85th% speeding range. With the program of bump outs, a public hearing is required. With speed humps there was a petition process involved, however, these measures are not used anymore. Measures to date have been funded by general city revenues. In the future, they may look at implementing local levies to pay for new measures. Because the experience with traffic calming is relatively recent, there have been no liability issues to deal with. Emergency response units do have some concerns, so the department tries to deal their issues on a street-by-street basis as opposed to a city-wide policy. The use of bump outs may cause them some problems with winter maintenance and snow plowing. They will be monitoring this.

The city traffic calming policy and procedures began in the late 1970's. Calgary has used a variety of measures including curb bulbs (which are popular), partial and full road closures, diagonal diverters, channelizations, multi-way stops (also popular), center medians, and curb line realignments (road narrowing). They want to try experimenting with textured crosswalks, chicanes. Entrance treatments and gateways have also been suggested. The department actively works with communities, with education measures promoted as the first step (i.e., traffic tip pamphlets, community speed display boards, speeding advisory signs at entry locations). The communities are encouraged to do letter drops and surveys and open houses are promoted. The department requires communities to make two attempts to draw attention to the traffic problems (which are primarily speed with some volume issues) before actual efforts are undertaken to install a physical work. Efforts are made to include the police, fire, emergency response people in the discussions on traffic calming measures. City Council must give final approval to the installation of any physical work. Currently, there is no requirement that a certain percentage of local residents must be in agreement with a measure but this may be introduced in the future. In most cases the decision is simply a political one where traffic calming programs are introduced by slim majority. A survey of opinion is used as opposed to voting. There have been no liability problems so far. City departments are given the opportunity to comment on any measure and attempts are made to iron out any problems early on in the process. There have been some complaints by street maintenance people in the winter time with traffic calming in that more manual maintenance is required. For example, snow clearing around curb bulbs has proven to be tricky.

Edmonton has been doing traffic calming on a formal basis since 1990. Prior to this, ad hoc traffic calming has been tried since the 1970s. They have used a variety of measures including speed humps, chicanes, curb extensions, raised median islands, closures, diverters and channelizations. Traffic calming has been instituted to address both shortcutting and speeding problems. Speed limits in residential areas are 50 km/h (30 mph) and anything over the 85th percentile (i.e., 10 to 15 km [6 to 9 mph] over) is considered a problem. They follow a process whereby neighbours and the community league are spoken to, data is gathered and the community is ranked on a list to have a traffic study done. Once an area has been selected for study, the department meets with the community, develops a plan with the local traffic committee, and then proceed to hold an open house. Information bulletins are also sent out to solicit resident opinion. The department requires a 30% response rate and from that a two-thirds majority in favour to go ahead. Once this is received, the proposal goes to Council for approval. At this point the measure is considered temporary. The community is then polled after the measure has been in operation, and based on the community’s reaction, the temporary measure then goes back to Council for final approval as a permanent measure. Funding for these measures comes from the Transportation Planning budget; however, they are currently reviewing the funding formula. To date there have been no real liability problems. They try to design their measures to minimize problems with emergency vehicles response and winter maintenance. Edmonton does not do snow clearing on local residential roads. They will usually do it only once if there is a heavy snowfall. Otherwise, measures like speed bumps are signed so that the plows know where to try and avoid them. Overall, the measures have worked and have been worth the money and the citizens seem to be pleased. They are just starting to conduct satisfaction surveys to get more formal feedback.

Regina has been experimenting with traffic calming measures since the mid 1980's. The measures are not very widespread and consist of chokers, center medians, cul de sacs and four way stop signs. Usually the measures are introduced to address volume problems and then speeding issues. Speeds addressed are in the 85th percentile range. There is no written policy on implementing traffic calming. If the department gets enough complaints they initiate neighborhood traffic studies. In some cases, they do speed studies beforehand. There is a Neighborhood Speed Reduction Plan, where radar speed signs are placed in communities and manned by residents and police over a period of time as a method of educating drivers. The measures are funded through the general capital budget. No liability issues have been brought forward to date. There have been no problems with emergency response units so far or with winter street maintenance. This is largely due to the fact that because there are so few measures in place the respective departments tolerate them. That would change if the city got into traffic calming in a big way. Overall, a program of traffic calming is viewed as worthwhile to pursue.

Saskatoon has been using traffic calming measures for about five years. Curb extensions are the most popular, especially around schools and school crossings. The city has also tried pedestrian refuge islands and speed humps. The humps have been well accepted by the public and have been quite effective in reducing speeds. Traffic calming measures are instituted to address both speed and volume issues, as well as pedestrian safety issues. The department works with the local residential community association using them as a proxy for public input. Usually, they first require a written request from the community outlining the problem which can lead to a speed study and a pedestrian study. They then publish a proposal in the local neighborhood newsletter to get the community on side and get their feedback on design issues. The requests they receive becomes an issue of prioritization (i.e., address those areas with the more severe problems first). In cases where speed is the primary problem, they use the 85th percentile as the measure. They also look at the distribution of speeds and identify what are the highest speeds. They specifically want to target to drivers that are going 70 to 80 km/h (43 to 50 mph) in a 50 km/h (30 mph) zone. They have found that curb extensions prevent these type of speeds from continuing. Measures are funded from general city revenues through the tax base. They have paid out a few claims (usually in the range of $500) but they usually sign extensively. This is especially helpful for snow removal purposes so maintenance crews know where the measures are. The crews don’t particularly like them in that they have to take extra care when working around them and it forces them to provide a higher level of service. Emergency response units have expressed no concerns with the measures used to date. The city’s overall experience has been positive. They are now trying to include traffic calming design measures (i.e., curb extensions) in all new subdivision projects based on their results to date.

The city has been experimenting with traffic calming measures for only the last five years to deal with both speed and volume issues. Posted speed limits in residential areas are 40 km/h (25 mph). Where speeding has been a problem, they have noticed that the speeds have ranged about 20 km (12 mph) over the posted limit (in the 85th percentile range). A lot of speeding has been noticed in the residential areas. Traffic calming is instituted as part of street reconstruction programs and predominantly consists of pinch points (road narrowing). The department works with local Traffic Safety Committees and measures are funded through the Public Works capital budget. The city has encountered no liability problems so far. More attention has to be paid when doing winter maintenance but the measures are usually marked. They have considered other measures, such as raised intersections, but there are problems with transit and emergency response times.

The City of Toronto (the old city prior to amalgamation) has typically dealt with speed issues. Residential streets have a posted speed limit of 40 km/h (25 mph). Usually, 40 to 60% of the traffic has been exceeding this posted limit. The city has just started a program of polling residential neighborhoods when it comes to implementing traffic calming measures. A rate of 60% in favour from those who respond is required. Measures of traffic calming are funded through general city revenues. No liability concerns have arisen. The process followed involves consultation with emergency response services in the design of traffic calming measures. There have been no major concerns regarding winter street maintenance. For example, they have specially designed their speed humps (using European examples) to allow snowplows to easily go over top without doing any great damage. With other measures, it is simply a trade-off where special attention is required on the part of maintenance crews.