Laserfiche WebLink
DISCUSSION OF POLICY FOR PROCESSING <br />TRAFFIC CALMING REQUESTS <br /> By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />RI5 CASE #3 <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The Road and Bridge Committee has been working on developing a written policy for dealing with <br />various traffic calming requests since fall of 1996. At the October 8, 1996 meeting, a draft policy was <br />presented and discussed. There was Committee concurrence on a number of issues including (1) <br />procedure for processing citizen requests, (2) policy on placing stop signs, (3) policy for use of multi- <br />way stop signs, (4) policy on yield signs, and (5) policy for speed limit signs and speed limit <br />modifications. Attached is a copy of the current draft of the policy. <br /> <br />A number of issues still remain to be discussed by the Committee. These remaining issues include the <br />following: <br /> <br />Issue <br /> <br />Reference Material <br /> <br />Watch for Children Signs <br />Deaf Child Area Signs <br />Street Closure <br />Speed Humps <br /> <br />NCITE page 5-1 <br />City of Blaine Policy <br />NCITE chapter 20 <br />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. All of these measures are similar <br />in that they are an attempt to reduce speed or direct traffic. They all have substantial capital cost <br />associated with them. An installation could be expected to be in excess of $5,000. I believe additional <br />discussion is warranted before a policy is developed for these traffic calming measures. Several issues <br />which should be addressed include: <br /> <br />1. Should other speed reduction methods be required prior to the installation of geometric <br /> modifications? <br />2. Should a traffic engineering study be required as a prerequisite for some modifications? <br />3. Should temporary simulated installation be required prior to permanent installation? <br />4. Should the costs of the traffic calming measures be assessed? <br />5. Should these measures be considered as a traffic calming measure the City will employ under any <br /> circumstances? <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 <br />Police Chief <br />City Attorney <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />Public Works Supervisor <br /> <br />RB: 08/12/97 <br /> <br /> <br />