Transcript Session 1 -- Introduction

Session 7
Procedures and Warrants
Portland’s Learning Curve
Original Process
Streamlined Process
Retrenchment
Portland’s Original Process
project requests
preliminary review
priority ranking
petition-to-study
plan development
petition-to-test/test installation
project evaluation
ballot to install permanently
council action
design
construction
monitoring
follow-up evaluation
ongoing
within 6 months
July/August
2 1/2 months
5 months
4 months
1 month
1 1/2 months
1 month
5 months
3 to 4 months
ongoing
within 3-5 years
What Works
Spot Treatment
Areawide Treatment
Reactive
Proactive
good
not-so-good
probably better
probably best
One of Four Pilot Projects Under Austin’s
New Areawide Policy
Case For and Against Warrants
General Warrants
Warrant 1 - Minimum Traffic Volume
Major Collectors
> 8,000 vpd or 800 vph
Minor Collectors
> 4,000 vpd or 400 vph
Local Residential Streets
> 1,000 vpd or 100 vph
Warrant 2 - Cut-Through Traffic
Major Collectors
50%
Minor Collectors
40%
Local Residential Streets
25%
Warrant 3 - 85th Percentile Speed
Major Collectors
10 mph > speed limit
Minor Collectors
10 mph > speed limit
Local Residential Streets
> speed limit
Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Crossing Volume
Major Collectors
> 100 per hour
Minor Collectors
> 50 per hour
Local Residential Streets
> 25 per hour
Warrant 5 - Accidents Per Year
Major Collectors
6
Minor Collectors
6
Local Residential Streets
3
Source: Engineering Department, City of Sarasota, FL
Need for Exceptions
Speed Hump Eligibility Requirements
(42 Agencies)
Requirement
Number
of Agencies
Resident Approval by Petition
Maximum Street Width
Minimum Traffic Volume (vpd)
Maximum Traffic Volume (vpd)
Maximum Grade
Prohibition on Emergency Routes
Prohibition on Transit Routes
30
8
11
12
12
27
7
Median
Value
67%
40 ft
1,000
5,000
6%
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Road Hump Evaluation Program “Final” Report,
Prepared for the City of San Diego, CA, 1997.
Alternatives to Warrants
Guidelines
Priority Rating Systems
Bellevue’s Guidelines
Seattle’s Priority Rating System
Score
Correctable Accidents/Year
.5-.875
1
(average over 3 years)
.876-1.2501
2
1.251-1.625
3
1.626-2.000
4
2..001-2.375
5
2..376-2..750
6
if “non-correctable” exceed an average of
2 per year
½
if midblock accidents exceed an average of 2 per year
½
Average Daily Volume (vpd)
500-1100
1101-1700
1701-2300
2301-2700
½
1
1½
2
85th Percentile Speed (mph)
26-29
29.1-32
32.1-35
35.1-38
38.1-41
41.1-44
½
1
1½
2
2½
3
Funding for 32 Highest Rated Projects (Seattle)
Other Priority Rating Systems
Austin*
50 vph = 1 mph
for volumes > 50 vph and
85th % speeds > 5 mph
over speed limit
speed-related accidents
schools within 1/2 mile
pedestrian generators within 1000’
lack of sidewalks
Portland**
1200 vpd = 1 mph
for all volumes and
85th % speeds > 35 mph
residential densities
lack of sidewalks
elementary school crossing
pedestrian generators
Tallahassee
200 vpd = 1 mph
for volumes > 500 vpd and
85th % speeds > 25 mph
accidents
pedestrian generators
residential densities
lack of sidewalks
schools within 1 mile
* Speed humps only
** Neighborhood collectors only -- Portland has different systems for two other programs
Neighborhood Approval Mechanisms

Petitions

Ballot

Opinion Surveys
Other Issues Regarding Neighborhood
Approval
Survey Response to Question,
"Should the traffic circles remain?"
“Yes” “No”
Treated Street
83%
17%
Adjacent Streets
33%
67%
Collaborative Planning Mechanisms
Visualization
Site Visits/Guided Tours
Computer Imaging
Visual Preference Surveys
--------------------------Participation
Design Charrettes
Focus Groups
Neighborhood Traffic Committees
Computer Imaging
Visual Preference Survey
Highest Rated Image (average score = 6.4)
Lowest Rated Image (average score = 3.0)
Focus Group Process
Design Charrette Process