Laserfiche WebLink
DISCUSSION OF POLICY FOR PROCESSING TRAFFIC CALMING REQUESTS <br /> By: Steven Jankowski~ City Engineer <br /> <br />Background: <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, <br />a draft policy was presented and discussed. Revisions to that draft policy based on comments at <br />that meeting have been made and are attached. The modifications include revisions to the <br />procedure portion of the policy. It was also suggested that a synopsis of the warrants for slope <br />and yield signs be included directly within the policy, rather than be incorporated by reference to <br />the 1991 Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices for Streets and Highways. This has also been <br />incorporated 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 <br />include the following: <br /> <br />ISSUe <br />Watch for Children Signs <br />Deaf Child Area Signs <br />Street Closure <br />Speed Humps <br /> <br />Reference Material <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 <br />similar in that they are an attempt to reduce speed or direct traffic. They all have substantial <br />capital cost associated with them. An installation could be expected to be in excess of $5,000. I <br />believe additional discussion is warranted before a policy is developed for these traffic calming <br />measures. Several issues 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 /> <br />Committee Action: <br />Review and modify draft policy. <br />for geometric modifications. <br /> <br />Provide direction on the questions raised regarding the policy <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br />City Engineer <br />Police Chief <br />City Attorney <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />Public Works Supervisor <br /> <br />RB:12/10/96 <br />/shared/councilc/trafcalm.doc <br /> <br /> <br />