Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> /~.~1 CASE # <br /> DISCUSSION OF POLICY FOR PROCESSING TRAFFIC CALMING <br /> REQUESTS <br /> By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br /> Background: <br /> <br /> For the past several months, the Road and Bridge Committee has been working on developing a <br /> written policy for dealing with various traffic calming requests. At the October 8, 1996 meeting, a <br /> draft policy was presented and discussed. Revisions to that draft policy based on comments at that <br /> meeting have been made and are attached. The modifications include revisions to the procedure <br /> portion of the policy. It was also suggested that a synopsis of the warrants for slope and yield <br /> signs be included directly within the policy, rather than be incorporated by reference to the 1991 <br /> Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices for Streets and Highways. This has also been incorporated <br /> into this revision. The Committee should review these changes. <br /> <br /> A number of issues still remain to be discussed by the Committee. These remaining issues include <br /> the following: <br /> <br /> Issue Reference Material <br /> Watch for Children Signs NCITE page 5-I <br /> Deaf Child Area Signs City of Blaine Policy <br /> Street Closure NCITE Chapter 20 <br /> Speed Humps NCITE Chapter 24 <br /> <br />I have not presented any draft policies relative to speed humps, street closures, chokers (curb <br />narrowing), and other similar geometric alterations of the roadway. Ali of these measures are <br />similar in that they are an attempt to reduce speed or direct traffic. They all have substantial capital <br />cost associated with them. An installation could be expected to be in excess of $5,000. I believe <br />additional discussion is warranted before a policy is developed for these traffic calming measures. <br />Several issues which should be addressed include: <br /> <br />Should other speed reduction methods be required prior to the installation of geometric <br />modifications? <br />Should a traffic engineering study be required as a prerequisite for some modifications? <br />Should temporary simulated installation be required prior to permanent installation? <br />Should the costs of the traffic calming measures be assessed? <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Review and modify draft policy. Provide direction on the questions raised regarding the policy for <br />geometric modifications. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br />City Engineer City Adminis~'ator <br />Police Chief Public Works Supervisor <br />City Attorney <br /> <br />RB: 1/14/97 <br />/shared/councilc/trafcalm.doc <br /> <br /> <br />