My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 09/09/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1996
>
Agenda - Council - 09/09/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:35:08 PM
Creation date
9/24/2003 11:22:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/09/1996
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
314
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
'l'KRhfl' <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />TYPE <br /> <br /> A street closure, for the purpose of the <br /> Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control <br /> Tool Box, is defined as closing a street either <br /> at one end or the other, or at a mid-block <br /> location. The purpose is to eliminate un- <br /> wanted through traffic. <br /> <br /> Street closing is a fairly common traffic con- <br /> trol technique. It is well documented in the <br /> "Residential Street Design & Traffic Control" <br /> published by Prentice Hall (t989). There are <br /> two basic types of closure to consider. Type 1 <br /> is defined as being near to the main street. <br /> The closed street can no longer gain access to <br /> or from the main street. Type 2 is defined as <br /> being a far closure. The closed street can only <br /> gain access to the main street. TyPe 1 is most <br /> effective at reducing through traffic volumes. <br /> <br /> Effect. s <br />Volumes. The impact on traffic volume is <br />drastic, reducing traffic volume to that which <br />is generated by the land use on the abutting <br />properties. To be most effective, the closure <br />must be visible to the drivers, so that the <br />driver does not run onto' the street and then <br />finds it to be a dead-end. A "dead-end" sign <br />may be needed. Sufficient capacity on the <br />alternative route is also needed. <br /> <br />Neighborhood Traffic Consol <br /> <br />January 1994 <br /> <br />TYPE 2 <br /> <br />Re.~t~J St ~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> · <br /> Speed. Again, the impact is drastic, reducing I <br /> the speed to that normally associated with <br /> short dead-end residential streets. I <br /> Traffic Noise, Air Quality and Energy Con- <br /> sumptioru There should be a dramatic ~ <br /> reduction in noise directly .related to the <br /> reduction in traffic volumei. This is also ac- I ~ <br /> complished with an increase in air quality. <br /> Energy Consumption. No change in energy ~ <br /> consumption is expected since vehicle trips <br /> are not eliminated, but merely rerouted to · <br /> main streets. <br /> <br />Traffic Safety. There is a substantial increase · <br />in traffic safety. The neighborhood abutting <br />the closed street has less traffic and the traffic <br />that remains is all local, usually well known ~ <br />amongst themselves. There is also a safety <br />improvement to the main street. Traffic ~ <br />entering' or exiting the main street is <br />eliminated at the closed street and relocated <br />at adjacent intersection with better traffic con- ~ <br />troL This portion of traffic safety has been the <br />force in the majority of s2'eet closures I <br />driving <br />described in the case study section. <br /> <br /> Reaction. Reaction from people I <br />Community <br />who live on the street is usualiy very positive. <br />It is important to have all the residents in- I <br /> <br /> 20-1 I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.