CITY OF SANTA FETRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM EVALUATION TASK FORCE
REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNING BODY
September 29, 2003
TASK FORCE MEMBERS:
Hubert Van Hecke, Chair
Claiborne Booker Ken Hughes
Don Ellis Edmundo Lucero
Michael Gold Irene Sanchez
Mary Granzow Pablo Sanchez
Staff Liaisons:
Deputy Chief Raye Byford Tom Ortiz, Public Works
Robin Elkin, Planning and Land Use Walter Roybal, Public Works
Carrie LaCrosse, Public Works
EDUCATION
City-Wide Anti-Speeding/Aggressive Driving/Red-light-Running Awareness Campaign
The Traffic Calming Program Evaluation Task Force heard from many citizens about the need to undertake a strong public awareness campaign on speeding and aggressive driving behavior in Santa Fe. Because the root of the speeding problem is often people's own lack of awareness about their driving habits and problem behaviors, and lack of awareness about the impact on safety and neighborhoods, an awareness campaign can have a positive impact on some people. Although the effectiveness of public awareness campaigns has not been well-documented, we - the task force - feet that in the long-term these campaigns can make a difference.
For this reason we feel that a city-wide campaign, including slogans, graphics and key information on safety, behavior and the law could improve public awareness about speeding and aggressive driving. The campaign could use brochures, posters and other materials, radio and TV spots, newspaper advertisements, city-wide mailings, and other methods to communicate this information. In addition to the efforts of city departments, state entities such as the Public Health Division and the Traffic Safety Bureau, should be contacted to assist with ideas and information related to the campaign.
We also feel there needs to be better education and awareness about the purpose and best use of stop signs. We heard from many people who feel that stop signs should be used to “slow” traffic. The Traffic Division has explained that stop signs cannot be used for traffic slowing purposes, and that established standards - “warrants” - must be met for their placement. However, the level of public interest and questioning about stop signs shows that many people are not aware or do not understand this. We feel the city needs to better educate people about the hazards of trying to use stop signs as “slowing” devices, and to illuminate the true value and purpose of stop signs when properly used.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the governing body appoint a citizen/staff task force to assist in the development of an anti-speeding/aggressive driving/red-light-running public awareness campaign for the City of Santa Fe. The campaign should have information on things such as the purpose and best use of stop signs. This task force should work with a public relations firm to develop the campaign.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the governing body review how driver's license requirements are established, and support the inclusion of a module related to aggressive driving behavior in the testing process. The above mentioned public awareness campaign could include the development of “aggressive driving” curriculum for middle and high schools, driving schools, etc.
Neighborhood Traffic Awareness Activities
In addition to the public awareness campaign mentioned above, “education” includes on-the-ground neighborhood tools that can be used by residents to heighten awareness of the impacts of speeding and aggressive driving. Neighborhood Traffic Awareness Activities include tools that make both residents and the people driving through their neighborhoods more aware of their behavior. Cities around the nation have developed various tools that help residents take action, such as the Neighborhood Pace Car Program or Neighborhood Speedwatch, which requires residents to use speed radar guns. Greater use of portable or permanent speed trailers or signs, which tell passing vehicles their speed, is another option. The single speed trailer operated by the city has been very popular with neighborhoods throughout Santa Fe. City of Santa Fe staff and citizens should work together to decide what programs can work in Santa Fe, and what staff and operational resources are needed for these programs.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the above-mentioned citizen/staff task force work with Traffic Engineering and Police Department (PD) Community Relations staff to develop neighborhood tools for education and awareness.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the purchase of additional radar speed trailers as allowed by budget and the availability of resources for staffing, operations and maintenance.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the purchase of additional hand-held radar units if the Neighborhood Speedwatch Program is developed. If so, an appropriate process for citizen training with the radar units and a process for the PD to notify speeders will need to be developed.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that Neighborhood Traffic Awareness Activities be considered in residential neighborhoods before physical devices are implemented.
ENFORCEMENT
Staff the Police Department Traffic Section with 9 full-time officers by 2006
We - the task force - heard from many people that enforcement needs to be a stronger component in the effort to reduce speeding, red light running and aggressive driving behavior in Santa Fe. The Police Department (PD) explained that in order for the PD to be more consistently effective in controlling speeding, they would need to develop a 9-person Traffic Section (6 officers, 2 sergeants and 1 lieutenant) dedicated to traffic enforcement. Nine new officer positions would be needed as existing vacancies on the force will not be used to staff this new section. The PD has said that if nine new positions were funded it would then take a minimum of two years to recruit, select, train and develop personnel capable of filling the Traffic Section. The PD has expressed strong interest in the development of a Traffic Section, and if new positions can be funded they will work to fully staff this section by 2006.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend increased focus on traffic enforcement in the PD by working to develop and fully staff the Traffic Section. Staffing of 9 full-time officers is recommended, with a goal to reach this staffing level by 2006.
Fines, fees and penalties increase for traffic citations
Higher penalties for the violation of traffic laws can be a deterrent to illegal driving behavior. Specifically, we heard that higher monetary costs should be put in place to discourage people from speeding, red light running and other traffic violations. Higher monetary costs can come in the form of increased fines (set by the State Legislature), increased fees (set by the city), and increased penalties (at the discretion of the judge). There is currently debate about whether the city's Home Rule powers allow the governing body to change the fine structure. This should be researched by the City Attorney's office.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that increased focus on enforcement be accompanied by a significant increase in fines, fees and penalties for traffic citations, which will provide an additional deterrent to the violation of traffic laws. This includes encouraging an increase in the fine structure by the State Legislature; an increase in penalties by the Municipal Court; and the imposition by the governing body of an additional fee for traffic citations.
Saturation patrol activities
We discussed the saturation patrol activities that are used around the nation, and that are currently in use by the Santa Fe Police Department. As much as is feasible with current staffing and resource levels, the PD does use specific saturation patrol patterns to try to influence driving behavior. They have recently begun a saturation patrol program that will use Traffic Division counting equipment on the ground before, during and after the patrols to measure the effectiveness of the program.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the PD continue in their efforts to implement saturation patrols on request, and on a pattern basis in specific “problem” areas identified with the help of Traffic Division staff. Continue coordination between PD and Traffic Division to measure vehicle volume and speed data before, during and after saturation patrols to determine effectiveness.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the PD continue to pursue sources for overtime funding for traffic saturation patrols.
Pursue legalization of photo radar for speeding and red-light running
We heard from many people about the advantages of using technology to assist in the enforcement of speeding and red-light running laws. Photo radar technology, which is used in many other states around the nation, allows a citation to be issued for speeding and red-light running based upon photos taken of the violator. At this time, the New Mexico State Constitution does not allow for photo radar to be used because a citation can only be issued by a uniformed officer who has witnessed the violation. The Santa Fe Police Department has joined the New Mexico Municipal League and others in lobbying the State Legislature for the past several years to change the constitution to allow for photo radar. Strong support from the governing body and the citizens of Santa Fe for legalization of the use of photo radar could help their efforts.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the PD continue in their efforts to lobby the State Legislature for a change in the constitutional laws that prohibit the use of Photo Radar.
TASK FORCE MINORITY OPINION: While seven members voted for the above recommendation, two members voted against it. The opposition has concerns about privacy issues related to the use of photo enforcement.
ENGINEERING
A. Design:
A1. Drainage & Paving
We - the task force - recognize that there are several issues regarding maintenance of the road surface that are related to traffic calming on city streets. These include the need for the careful design of projects to make sure that drainage and access are maintained or improved, and the need to ensure that periodic road maintenance (repaving, microsurfacing, sealing, etc.) is completed.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that staff continue to work with the Streets Maintenance Division to identify drainage issues on project streets and solve problems when possible, either through the efforts of the Streets Maintenance Division or by designing improvements into traffic calming projects as feasible. This should include retrofit of existing drainage grates to make them traversable by bicycles, and when pedestrian access can be enhanced by the design of small amounts of sidewalk that will make existing sidewalks continuous, this should be considered as well.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Public Works Department develop a process for best determining how needed road maintenance (repaving, microsurfacing, slurry or crack seal, etc.) should be done on traffic calming project streets before traffic calming is constructed. Road maintenance should be funded either through the paving fund of the Streets Maintenance Division or through Traffic Calming Program funds.
A2. Landscaping
While landscaping in the first round of traffic calming projects was initially limited because of water restrictions, the Traffic Calming Section is now working with the Parks Department to ensure that all traffic calming devices will be landscaped with drought-tolerant xeriscape. We support this action and believe that the importance of landscaping is not only aesthetic, but functional as well - landscaping in and along the roadway can create visual cues that can have an effect on slowing vehicle traffic.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program as Policy #8 that says “Landscaping is an important aspect of traffic calming for both aesthetic reasons and as a reinforcement of the visual impact of traffic calming measures. Landscaping can be used as a traffic slowing technique on its own by creating a visual narrowing of the roadway.” New TCP Policy #8
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that staff develop a consistent process for quick implementation of landscaping in new projects. This includes the need to budget new landscaping into all projects. This also includes the need to work with the Parks Department to establish a xeriscape template for the landscaping of different devices of different sizes and purposes. This also includes the need to work with the Parks Department on assuring a process for the maintenance of the landscaping in the long term, either through the provision of adequate funding to the department, or through a program of neighborhood volunteer maintenance.
A3. Slope and other conditions of roadway
We feel that the slope of the roadway can create conditions where people pick up greater speed between traffic calming devices. Because of this we feel that city staff should research whether closer placement of devices may be needed to reduce the tendency for speed to increase between devices.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program as Policy #9 that says “The slope of the roadway should be considered in the design phase to determine if a tighter spacing of traffic calming devices may be needed to prevent vehicles from picking up speed between devices on the downslope. This should be analyzed per safety and engineering standards, and then included as appropriate in staff's consideration of projects.” New TCP Policy #9
A4. Device design parameters
While the greater use of horizontal traffic calming devices is generally preferred by our group, we also recognize that the devices need to be designed with adequate deflection to have an impact on vehicle speeds. We discussed an optimal chicane design and discussed ways of working this design into existing streets that have right-of-way constraints. The horizontal deflection should be equal to the travel lane width on the project street, however, at a minimum, the horizontal deflection should equal eight feet. Options that can be explored (and reviewed with the traffic engineer) to provide adequate deflection include:
• Lowering the speed limit or posting 20 mph warning plaques can allow the chicane to have lower speed (ie. 20 mph) curves, and lower speeds allow bicycles to travel in the vehicle travel lane safely;
• Making a street one-way provides additional right-of-way space for the horizontal deflection and can also provide space for a separate bicycle lane;
• Using a 12” gutter or no gutter when appropriate can create additional asphalt space on the roadway;
• Using aggressive planting on the curves of the chicane can reinforce the visual effect of the chicane.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program as part of the definition of the Chicane under Techniques for Local Street Projects that says “Chicanes should have adequate horizontal deflection to be effective. The horizontal deflection should be equal to the travel lane width on the project street. At a minimum, the horizontal deflection should equal eight feet. Also, chicanes must be designed to allow the safe passage of bicyclists through the chicane.” (pg. 21)
A5. Design for bicycle access
We heard from many individuals about the need to safely design bicycle access through all traffic calming measures. When a project can improve access - by striping new bicycle lanes, or improving drainage grates for bicycle safety - this should be included. We heard that additional striping, marking and signage can better illustrate to all vehicles how bicycles should negotiate a traffic calmed street. We heard that on streets where traffic is traveling 25 mph or slower, bicycles are able to share the travel lane with motorized vehicles, but when traffic is traveling over 25 mph bicycles should have a separate bicycle lane whenever possible. Also, we heard that bicycles do not have trouble traversing a speed hump or table, particularly when traffic is moving at 25 mph or lower and the bicycle is able to move over the top of the table. It is unclear how well bicycles are able to traverse the sloped side of a speed hump or table, and this should be examined further.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that traffic calming staff continue to consider these bicycle access issues when designing traffic calming projects, and that the city staff person working with the Bikeways Committee of the City of Santa Fe have a role in reviewing traffic calming projects for bicycle safety and access.
A6. Universal access (ADA) improvements
We recognize that the city has to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations and that furthermore the city desires to provide universal access throughout Santa Fe whenever possible. In retrofit situations, which comprise most traffic calming projects, universal access improvements shall meet ADA requirements, and the city shall work to make improvements beyond those required by ADA when feasible.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the traffic calming staff continue to work with the ADA Coordinator of the city to make sure that traffic calming projects are in compliance with ADA. The ADA Coordinator will continue to review all traffic calming projects in the field with traffic calming staff, and will sign off on all traffic calming plans before construction.
A7. Signage and markings
We heard from many people who feel that the signs used to mark the location of speed humps and tables had a negative aesthetic effect on the streetscape. There were requests that the number and/or types of signs used to mark raises be changed in some way. The City of Santa Fe follows the federal Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which outlines the signage and markings that should be used for traffic calming devices. This manual does not allow for a variation in the color or reflectivity of the signs, or a reduction in the number of signs. The manual does allow for a minimum sign size of 24 X 24 inches to be used in some cases, as opposed to the standard 30 X 30 inch sign. While less signage was desired by many of the people that we heard from, the use of striping to define travel lanes and visually narrow the road was usually desired. Lane striping can reinforce or even replace traffic calming measures in some places, and can sometimes be used as an interim measure, while traffic calming is being considered. It must be remembered that the addition of signage and striping of any kind to the road network will cause an increased need for operations and maintenance resources over time.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program as Policy #7 that says “The city seeks to minimize the visual impact of signs, while meeting the overall objective of making the roads safe for drivers and others. Within the parameters established by the MUTCD, the city shall explore other options that might improve the aesthetic appeal.” New TCP Policy #7
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that smaller “speed hump” signs (24 x 24 inch) be considered in neighborhoods where speed humps (14 ft) are constructed and the road width is not wide enough to require a larger sign for safety and visibility. The 24 x 24 inch sign may be appropriate in areas where speed tables have been constructed and 20 mph warning plaques are placed, if the road width is sufficiently narrow that the larger sign is not needed.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the city use visual cues, such as striping and other street markings, when feasible, as a reinforcement of traffic calming or as an interim measure on higher-volume streets.
B. Policies:
B1. Preference for Horizontal Devices
We heard several reasons that the use of horizontal devices should be pursued whenever feasible over vertical raises such as speed humps and tables. Particularly for emergency response, for snow plow and street sweeper operations, and for vehicle maintenance, horizontal devices are preferred. In order for horizontal devices to be used, however, the design of the devices must be adequate to cause the desired slowing of traffic. This requires adequate road width (right-of-way) for the horizontal deflection, and careful engineering of the devices to make them effective, while safe for 25 mph traffic flows. The other limitation to many types of horizontal deflections is the existence of driveways and intersections, and the fact that horizontal deflections usually require the removal of on-street parking.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program as Policy #6 that says “The Traffic Calming Program shall explore the use of horizontal traffic calming devices and visual effects, such as striping and landscaping, when feasible before turning to the use of vertical devices, such as speed tables and humps.” New TCP Policy #6 Also, place this statement in the Introduction section of the Traffic Calming Program under the section “How does the Traffic Calming Program work?” (pg. 2)
B2. Emphasize Pedestrian Activity
We heard about the importance of pedestrian activity in neighborhoods - the need for greater universal (ADA) access, bicycle access, greater pedestrian crossing safety, safety for children in school zones, etc. Because of this we feel that the traffic calming program should emphasize in its introduction that one of the goals of traffic calming is to enhance the pedestrian environment in neighborhoods, and to allow for an increase in pedestrian activity.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program Introduction section at the end of the second paragraph that says “One of the main goals of traffic calming is to enhance the pedestrian environment in neighborhoods, allowing for an increase in safe pedestrian activity.” (pg. 1)
B3. Require Aesthetic Traffic Calming Treatments in New Developments
While traffic calming is required for new developments, we feel that it is important to emphasize that aesthetic treatments that can have a calming effect, such as textured pavement, landscaping, striping and other visual treatments, should be required as well.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that new developments be required to include aesthetic treatments such as textured pavement, landscaping, striping and other visual treatments that can have a traffic calming effect and can enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety.
B4. Temporary Devices
The use of temporary devices can sometimes be very effective in allowing neighborhood residents to understand the impact of a traffic calming device, especially on high-volume streets. Particularly since the design of horizontal devices varies with the width and constraints of each street, temporary construction of chicanes, circles or narrowings, etc. should be tried when this is desired by the staff or neighborhood residents working on the design. Temporary speed humps or tables can be used as well, however there are many of these devices that are already built in Santa Fe that can be tested by residents. Also, the installation of temporary speed humps and tables usually requires considerable staff resources which may not be available to the traffic calming section. New technologies for temporary speed humps, tables and other devices should be researched, however, and should be pursued if they are considered feasible by staff.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the temporary construction of horizontal devices for testing purposes be considered, especially on high-volume streets. Also, we recommend that staff review new technologies for temporary devices as they become available and consider their use if feasible.
B5. Snow Removal
The construction of traffic calming devices on city streets can be an impediment for the city's snow removal program. Horizontal devices require the snow plow to move around the device, and vertical devices require the snow plow to be lifted as the plow traverses the device. This requires additional time and care in the plowing of traffic calmed streets. Priority One snow removal routes should have no devices other than medians and turn bays. On Priority Two and Three snow removal routes horizontal devices should be emphasized over vertical devices when possible. In addition, all devices must be adequately marked so that a plow can determine where devices are on the street when covered with snow. The operations and maintenance costs related to the delay of the snow plows when traversing traffic calmed streets should be estimated by the Streets Maintenance Division so that the city can ensure that adequate resources are available for that program.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that Policy#5 h. in the Traffic Calming Program shall be revised to say “All streets selected for traffic calming need to be evaluated to determine drainage impacts. Consideration shall also be given to streets designated on the City of Santa Fe Priority Snow Removal Roads Map (Appendix D). [new material:] Traffic control devices on Priority One Snow Removal streets be limited to medians and turn-bays. Traffic calming devices should be allowed on Priority Two and Three Snow Removal streets, but horizontal devices should be emphasized when possible. These concerns will be reviewed with the Streets Maintenance Division prior to approval. Amended TCP Policy #5 h.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Director of the Streets Maintenance Division shall continue to review all traffic calming designs prior to construction.
B6. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
The costs for operation and maintenance of traffic calming devices are as follows:
Public Works Department, Traffic Signs and Markings Section
• Paint striping - part of standard striping maintenance.
• Tape markings - replaced every three to five years.
• Signs - replaced every ten to twelve years (or more often due to accidents or vandalism).
Public Works Department, Streets and Fleet Maintenance Division
• Snow Removal
• Drainage Structure Maintenance
• Road Maintenance
• Street Sweeping
• City Fleet Maintenance
Parks and Recreation Department, Maintenance (Median Landscaping)
• Watering
• Cleaning - Litter/Weeds
• Irrigation/Landscaping replacement starting in second year
Initial signs, markings, landscaping and some road maintenance will be done through contract by the Traffic Calming Program (TCP). Operations and maintenance (O&M) for signs and markings will begin in third year, and can be done in-house or through contract by the TCP. The cost of marking and sign replacement needs to be calculated by the TCP. O&M costs for snow removal, drainage structure maintenance, and street sweeping will require additional resources for the Streets Maintenance Division, and need to be calculated by that division as the information becomes available. Parks Department O&M costs will include initial equipment costs of $26,000; and annual O&M crew & materials costs of $60,000 per year.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the long-term operations and maintenance costs be calculated as that information becomes available, and that budget adjustments be made accordingly either through appropriation of TCP funds to future O&M, or through appropriate operating budget adjustments to the divisions responsible for the O&M.
B7. Emergency Response
We were informed that the Fire Department and the Traffic Division have developed an update of the City of Santa Fe Emergency Response Route (ERR) map that will define the Priority One and Priority Two ERR. Priority One ERR streets will have no speed tables or humps (but raised crosswalks would be allowed in key locations with the approval of the Fire Chief). Priority Two ERR streets can have speed tables, but no speed humps. Local non-ERR streets can have speed humps. The Fire Department shall review and approve all projects on all ERR streets.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the updated ERR map be taken to the governing body for their review and approval as an appendix to the TCP, and TCP Policy #5 c. shall be amended to reflect the new ERR policy. In addition, Table 4: Speed Control Measures - Vertical, should be amended to reflect that speed tables may not be acceptable for Priority One Level Emergency Vehicle Access. (pg. 20)
C. Eligibility/Ranking (Prioritization):
C1. Points for projected traffic from approved development projects
We were asked to consider that the volume of traffic from approved pending development be considered in the analysis of eligibility for traffic calming. If a street has an approved, pending development the projected volume from the city-approved traffic study should be included with the measured volume for the street.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program in the Procedures section under Eligibility and Ranking that says “The projected increase in traffic volume that has been defined by a city-approved traffic impact analysis as part of a city-approved future development shall be added to the current measured volume of traffic on the street when the street is being analyzed for the TCP. These projected volumes shall be added only when a final development plan has been approved by the governing body, or other formal approval by the city has been granted that allows the development to be constructed.” (pg. 9, end of first paragraph under Eligibility and Ranking)
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that developer contributions for traffic calming on a specific street (mitigation for projected traffic increase on the street) either be used by the developer for the construction of the required traffic calming, or be placed into an escrow account to be used if a traffic calming project on that street is developed by the city.
C2. Points for close proximity of homes to street
We were asked to consider if the close proximity of homes on the street to the roadway should contribute to the eligibility of a project. Homes that are in close proximity to the street can be highly impacted by the noise, vibrations and emissions caused by passing vehicles, and have certain safety concerns related to the proximity to the street. We feel that if a street did not meet eligibility for a traffic calming project, then this condition could contribute to their basic eligibility. At least half of the homes on the street must be within 10 feet of the travel lane, and the traffic engineer shall make the final interpretation regarding the awarding of these eligibility points.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program in the Procedures section under Eligibility and Ranking that says “If a street is not eligible for traffic calming, additional eligibility points can be assigned to the street for the close proximity of homes on the street to the roadway. If at least 50% of the homes on the street are located within 10 feet of the travel lane, the street can receive 10 extra points towards eligibility. Homes that are in close proximity to the street are highly impacted by the noise, vibrations and emissions caused by passing vehicles. There are also safety concerns related to the proximity of the house to the roadway. The traffic engineer shall make the final interpretation regarding the awarding of these eligibility points.” (pg. 9, after first paragraph under Eligibility and Ranking))
C3. Points for visibility or maneuverability problem
We were asked to consider if the existence of a visibility or maneuverability problem on the street, such as an extreme rise, dip or curve, should contribute to the eligibility of a project. These aberrations in the roadway, which can cause safety issues, may be improved through “spot” treatments at the location of the problem. This issue has come up with several roadways in Santa Fe, however, the city has not yet used traffic calming devices as spot treatments in this manner.
The existence of the visibility or maneuverability problem is traditionally treated through warning signs and markings (or even flashers, multiple chevron signs, etc.). The safety of the area might be improved by slowing vehicles on the approach to the problem by using traffic calming devices. We agreed that the “spot” treatment of streets using traffic calming devices could be tried, and that, as with proximity of homes to street, that the existence of a problem spot might contribute to eligibility only if eligibility is not met through the standard criteria.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement should be placed in the Traffic Calming Program in the Procedures section under Eligibility and Ranking that says “If a street is not eligible for traffic calming, additional eligibility points can be assigned to the street for the existence visibility or maneuverability problem on the street. If such a problem spot exists, as determined by the traffic engineer, the street can receive 10 extra points toward eligibility. There are safety concerns related to the existence of such a problem on a street that can be improved through the use of spot traffic calming treatments on the roadway. The traffic engineer shall make the final interpretation regarding the awarding of these eligibility points.” (pg. 9, after first paragraph under Eligibility and Ranking))
C4. Better develop a “fast track” for local street projects
Many of the comments we heard were related to resolving the difficult, often conflicting issues on our higher-order streets - collectors and minor arterials. These streets function as emergency response routes (ERR) and snow-removal priority streets, and carry greater neighborhood and commuter traffic as part of their basic function. While there is no justification for high average speeds on these streets, and the neighborhood-orientation of many of these streets make them popular candidates for traffic calming, it is clear that the public involvement and design processes will require more effort and time than that required for the planning of local streets. We would like to see a better process to be developed to “fast track” local, non-ERR, non-snow-removal streets.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a staff should look at developing a process to “fast track” the Local Street Projects”, which are already defined in the Traffic Calming Program. This fast track should allow simple planning processes to move ahead while more lengthy planning for complex, higher-order streets is occurring.
D. Approval/Appeals/Evaluation (Public Process):
D1. Voting area
We discussed the definition of the voting area for traffic calming projects at length. Buffering or otherwise expanding the voting area was not a preferred option for two reasons: the creation of a designated buffer around a project street is inexact and routinely incorporates properties that do not use the project street as their main access, and studies of traffic calming around the nation have shown that the further away people are from a project street the less concerned they are about the impact that traffic has on the livability of that street. People who live further away from the project street fit into two major areas of concern: people on adjacent streets are concerned about the diversion of traffic, and people who travel through the neighborhood are concerned about the imposition that traffic calming causes on their path of travel. We feel that the diversion issue was adequately covered in the existing traffic calming program, as analysis of potential diversion is a key part of the planning process. The issue for people moving through a neighborhood was more a matter of being able to be adequately notified and heard. For this reason we focused more on expanding the notification and public meeting process at the initiation of each traffic calming project as opposed to expanding the voting area. We want to emphasize that staff should be able to make the final determination about appropriate voting areas based on site-specific analyses of each project - including the ability to enlarge or limit the voting area if appropriate.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a statement be placed in the Traffic Calming Program in the Plan Development section (end of third paragraph) and in the Plan Approval section (end of second paragraph) that says “The City Traffic Engineer shall make the final determination of the appropriate voting area for each traffic calming project.”
D2. Level of approval needed for project installation or for project removal after installation
We discussed many aspects of the approval process including the percentage of household signatures required for the initial petition, the percentage needed for approval of a project and the percentage needed for removal of an installed project. We agree that the approval level should be brought up to two-thirds of the residents and property owners in the voting area, or 67% (the current number is 60%). We are split, however, on the required level of approval needed for the removal of the traffic calming devices once they are installed. Some members feel that the levels should be equal, others feel that the removal level should remain at its current level.
Staff recommends a high level of approval for the removal of traffic calming devices. The city does not choose to install and remove devices easily, and wants the final decision to install devices to be a serious and permanent decision of the voters approving the project. We agree that the choice to approve traffic calming devices should be a serious consideration of the residents, and not seen as something that can easily be overturned later. Staff would like the decision to remove devices to be based on a clear change to the traffic conditions of the street. Staff recommends that 75% of the voting area should vote for removal of the traffic calming devices, which is the current level.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS: We were split four votes to four on this issue. Four members voted to have a 67% approval and 67% removal level. Four members voted to have a 67% approval and 75% removal level.
D3. Notification of initial project planning meetings
We feel that additional notification of the project and the initial public meetings should occur to ensure the broad participation of people who use the project street. This early notification will improve the amount of involvement at the front end of the process of people who travel the street, but don't live within the immediate neighborhood.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend a statement be added to the Traffic Calming Program Plan Development section under both Local and Complex Projects that says “Notification of the initial meeting for the project shall include large signs posted on the project street and newspaper advertisements to broaden the scope of people who are notified of the meeting. Complex projects may continue to have this type of notification for all project meetings.” (pg 12)
D4. Appeals process (for both installation and removal)
We were instructed to consider an appeals process for traffic calming projects. We feel that an appeals process should be added to the program that allows someone who falls within the minority opposition for a project to take a neighborhood-approved plan to the governing body for further consideration. This appeals process should allow appeals to neighborhood approval of projects, and appeals to neighborhood votes to remove projects. The appeal should be heard by the Public Works Committee, and taken to the governing body only if a further appeal is desired.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend a change in the Traffic Calming Program Procedures section to create “Plan Approval, Appeals and Implementation” and new text as follows: (pg 14)
“APPEALS
A person residing or owning property within the ballot area may appeal the approval of a traffic calming plan to the Public Works Committee of the governing body. The appeal must be submitted to the Traffic Division within 30 calendar days of the date of the letter from the City notifying ballot area residents of the approval. The decision of the Public Works Committee may be appealed by a person within the ballot area to the governing body. This appeal must be submitted to the Traffic Division within 30 calendar days of the decision of the Public Works Committee. Notification of pending appeals and the results of all appeals shall be sent by the city to persons within the ballot area.
The purpose of the appeals process is to allow the discussion of the traffic calming plan to occur at the Public Works Committee and governing body levels, if issues related to the plan could not be resolved through the planning process. The appellant should indicate in their appeal the reason(s) that the believe that the decision that they are appealing is incorrect or inappropriate.
Similarly, a person residing or owning property within the ballot area may appeal the decision of residents to remove traffic calming devices. This appeal of the removal of traffic calming devices will also proceed to Public Works Committee and then to the governing body, if further appeal is desired. This appeal process also requires the appeal to be submitted within 30 days of notification, and requires statement of reasons for the appeal, as in the process outlined above.”
D5. Post-Construction Evaluation
We want to ensure that the post-construction evaluation of traffic calming projects include a resident survey. This survey is not intended to be a survey for the removal of devices, which is already covered in the program, but a survey that would indicate the level of satisfaction with the general design of the project and with specific devices, and that would indicate neighborhood perception of reduced speeds, greater pedestrian safety, etc. The survey must be distributed at least three to six months after complete installation of the project, as all new installations require time for driving behavior to become consistent.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend a statement be added to the Traffic Calming Program Project Evaluation section at the end of the first paragraph that says “A post-construction survey to all people within the ballot area shall occur three to six months after the complete installation of the project. The intent of the survey is to measure the level of satisfaction with the general design of the project, specific devices, perception of speed reduction, pedestrian safety, etc.” (pg 16)
E. Historic Districts:
We discussed the reactions - both pro and con - in the community regarding traffic calming in the city's historic districts. There is a strong reaction to the aesthetic impact that traffic calming devices, and particularly the required signs and markings, have had in this unique part of town. At the same time, people on the historic street where traffic calming currently is in place are generally satisfied with the slowing of traffic and improved livability on their street. Even if the aesthetic impact is recognized, it is seen by many on the street as a fair trade-off for the enhanced pedestrian safety and quality of life for residents. This continues to be an issue as many other historic district neighborhoods have applied or shown interest in traffic calming on their streets.
Based on several lengthy discussions, we agree that residential areas could not be denied traffic calming because of their location in an historic district. If traffic calming is a public safety and quality of life enhancement, it would be unfair to deny it to certain neighborhoods in town. However, we realize that the historic area - and particularly the Downtown and Eastside Historic District, which encompasses the oldest part of Santa Fe - needs special consideration. Traffic signs and markings can not be eliminated from a traffic calming project, however, creative improvements may be made to make these things more palatable aesthetically, and from an historic preservation point of view. And, importantly, it could be possible to try creative alternative solutions in this area before physical devices that need signs and markings are installed. We discussed “creative” alternatives such as educational “neighborhood awareness” tools, textured pavement treatments (pavers, brick, Belgium blocks, porphyry), striping and on-street parking to narrow road widths and landscaped horizontal devices, any or all of which could be tried before vertical speed humps or tables are used. We also noted that these special treatments may lead to additional project costs in the historic district neighborhoods.
There was some discussion of the role that the Historic Design Review Board (HDRB) could have in the area of traffic calming in the historic districts. Staff suggested that the HDRB could either research or solicit grant funds to study creative “historic” traffic calming designs and materials from other cities that would be acceptable to the HDRB. It was also suggested that the HDRB may have a greater role in reviewing traffic calming plans put forward by historic neighborhoods. In both cases it became evident that the time and resources needed to accomplish both of these things are not currently available to the HDRB, so these were not recommendations that we brought forward.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that staff work with applicants in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District to encourage creative alternatives such as educational “neighborhood awareness” tools, textured pavement treatments, striping and on-street parking to narrow road widths, and landscaped horizontal devices, etc. These alternatives should be tried with the neighborhood before vertical speed humps or tables are used.
TASK FORCE MINORITY OPINION: While seven members voted for the above recommendation, two members voted against it. The minority opinion is to recommend as above that staff work with applicants in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District to encourage creative alternatives such as educational “neighborhood awareness” tools, textured pavement treatments, striping and on-street parking to narrow road widths, and landscaped horizontal devices, etc. ALSO, vertical devices, such as speed humps and speed tables will be banned from installation in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District for one year from the governing body approval of this recommendation to allow these other alternatives to be tried. Raised crosswalks may be used in this district, but only at specific crossing locations where heavy pedestrian crossing occurs.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that staff continue to take all traffic calming project plans in historic districts to the Historic Design Review Board for their input before the plans are finalized and voted on by neighborhood residents.
F. Minor Arterial Streets:
As mentioned earlier, we discussed the issues related to traffic calming on higher-order streets - collectors and minor arterials - at length. The city's higher-order streets - particularly minor arterials - which serve emergency vehicles, transit, commuters and require snow removal, are also extremely residential in nature. Their design is unlike that which would be found in most other cities for streets of this type. Our “higher-order” streets are residentially zoned and have frequent residential driveway access. They are often very narrow and have minimal bike or pedestrian space even though they are highly used by walking and biking residents. They provide access to many of our schools and parks, which requires that safe pedestrian crossing locations exist, and the homes often front very close to the roadway. In fact, their residential nature is why their residents frequently apply for traffic calming - the residents on these streets see them as neighborhood streets, not as “higher-order” minor arterials.
Yet, in our limited road network, they have to function as such. They don't have to carry traffic at 10 to 15 mph over the speed limit, but they do have to carry traffic. And they have to allow quick fire access, and they have to be snow plowed in the winter. Speed humps are not allowed on these higher-order streets, but speed tables are. So, as a result of our discussions, we decided to suggest moving away from allowing speed tables on minor arterial streets, especially when the average volume of traffic is above a certain level. The Fire Department has redrafted their Emergency Response Route map and has included Priority One routes which will not be allowed to have speed tables. These routes take precedence. However, some higher-order streets are not identified on the route map. Speed tables could be prohibited from these streets.
In reality, if police traffic enforcement can seriously be enhanced, it should be focused on higher volume streets, where officers can have the most impact, both by catching violators, and by being seen by the most drivers. High-volume collectors and minor arterials are ideal streets for focused traffic enforcement by officers, and at the same time, vertical devices can be reduced on these streets. Vertical traffic calming could then be focused on local streets and lower-volume residential collectors and minor arterials.
The City of Santa Fe defines minor arterials (secondary arterials) as having 5,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. Collectors have 1,000 to 5,000 vpd and locals generally have below 1,000 vpd. However, while that is the definition by volume, in the effort to designate complete networks, some of the city's designated collectors have over 5,000 vpd and some minor arterials have below 5,000 vpd. Therefore, we discussed limiting vertical devices on streets based on volume, not solely on designation as collector or minor arterial.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Fire Department rules about limitation of vertical devices on Priority One Emergency Response Routes shall be primary. However, for a street that is not a Priority One ERR, if it is a 25 mph minor arterial or collector street that has over 5,000 vpd and has an asphalt road width of at least 30 ft (or 32 ft if there is no sidewalk) it shall not have speed tables or speed humps as a general rule. Horizontal devices - such as chicanes (with a minimum 8 ft. deflection), circles or narrowings - shall be used. Raised crosswalks could be used in specific crossing locations such as trail, park or school crossings. Any exceptions to this policy will be determined by the traffic engineer.