Subject: TRAFFIC
CALMING STATUS REPORT
COUNCIL DISTRICT: Citywide
It is recommended that the City Council accept this report and direct the preparation of quarterly status reports on traffic calming services and activities beginning January 2002.
With its adoption of the Traffic Calming Policy on June 26, 2001 the City Council requested a status report by December of 2001 that addressed the progress toward meeting the objectives of the policy. Specific issues identified by the Council included adequate staffing and resource levels to meet the projected timelines, working with Council offices on the petition process, monitoring costs associated with school safety efforts, supporting the development of strong neighborhood associations, and the overall effectiveness of the traffic calming program. At its August 22, 2001 meeting, the Rules Committee requested a status report of the traffic calming services and activities as soon as possible.
This report includes the status of traffic calming efforts through the months of July and August. The analysis includes the Traffic Calming Policy adopted by City Council in June, traffic calming performance targets for FY 2001-02, the status of special projects related to traffic calming, and the status of traffic calming services.
The Traffic Calming Policy was the product of an extensive review of applicable policies, standards and guidelines. The current policy, unlike past traffic calming policies, applies to all San Jose streets, contains time guidelines, and addresses traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods created by new developments.
The policy contains two categories of traffic calming services. The first category is referred to as a basic service and includes about 95% of requests for service. Appropriate studies are conducted to address the particular concern of a requester(s). The goal is to determine the appropriate action to respond to the concern within two weeks and, if needed, to install the applicable signs, markings or other basic devices within three additional weeks.
The second category of traffic calming service is a Level 1
or 2 project. Level 1 projects address
pedestrian safety, speeding or other inappropriate driver behavior with devices
that go beyond the basic traffic calming “toolbox,” but does not require City
Council approval. About 4% of the
requests for service result in level 1 projects. Because of the potential impact of level 1 devices, much more
time is needed to engage affected community members and emergency service
providers. Up to four months are
needed to determine the appropriate action from the initiation of the
study. If temporary devices are used,
installation should occur within four months.
From the point in time that a decision is made on a final plan, the goal
is to install the permanent device(s)is 12 months within 12 months.
Level 2 traffic calming projects are intended to redirect traffic in order to address excessive traffic volumes. Less than 1% of the requests for service fall into this category. These projects generally require more outreach than Level 1 projects. A neighborhood traffic committee is formed to work with staff to develop a plan and to develop community support for that plan. It will take up to 16 months from the initiation of a Level 2 study to the City Council’s approval of a permanent plan. It may then take up to 12 months to design and construct the final set of improvements.
1. Perception of residents that streets are safe streets, based on the annual community survey
% of residents rating traffic impacts in
their neighborhoods as “acceptable”
§ Five-year Goal: 75%
§ 2000 Rating: 63%
§ 2002 Target: 66%
2. Reduction in crashes on San Jose neighborhood
streets, based on crash data
% reduction in crash rates in neighborhoods
§ Data being analyzed to develop goal, existing rate, and target
3. Impacts on existing residential streets due to new
developments, based on traffic data
% of new developments with no significant increase in traffic through existing neighborhoods
§ Data being analyzed to develop goal, existing rate, and target
The preceding measures provide a broad context with which to assess traffic conditions in neighborhoods and are determined annually. The measures reflect conditions citywide, including neighborhoods that receive City traffic calming services and neighborhoods that do not.
The second set of performance measures is at the service level. The domain of customers are those who receive traffic calming services provided by the City. The performance measures, five-year goals, FY 2000-01 actuals, and FY 2001-02 targets are shown below:
1. Condition: % of calming studies implemented achieving desired objectives
§ Goal: 75%
§ FY 2000-01 Actual: N/A
§ FY 2001-02 Target: 66%
2. Timeliness: % of studies through implementation completed within timelines
§ Goal: 90%
§ FY 2000-01 Actual: 57%
§ FY 2001-02 Target: 63%
3. Customer: % of customer service ratings of good or better
§ Goal: 90%
§ FY 2000-01 Actual: 82%
§ FY 2001-02 Target: 85%
4. Cost: % of improvements within cost estimates
§ Goal: 90%
§ FY 2000-01 Actual: N/A
§ FY 2001-02 Target: 85%
It is noted that the above targets for FY 2001-02 do not achieve the five-year goals. The reason for the lower target values reflect the initial surge in demand for services, the time to train and develop new program staff, the time to refine and implement new systems and processes, and the uncertainties in this, the first full year of the traffic calming program. The targets reflect a full year of service. The actual performance for the first and potentially the second quarter will probably be lower than the overall performance for the full year.
There are a number of special projects requested or endorsed by the City Council and the ad hoc Traffic Calming Advisory Committee that are currently under way. These projects are beyond the scope of normal traffic calming services. Each project, however, will ultimately enhance the delivery of traffic calming services. The following table includes the status, targeted date of completion, and comments for each special project:
|
|
Project |
Status |
Target Date |
Comments |
|
1. |
Legislation
Change on Speed Enforcement |
OS |
To Council Dec 2001 |
Decriminalize
neighborhood and school zone moving violations |
|
2. |
School
Access Enhancement Program |
OS |
Complete June 2002 |
First year of four year effort to identify traffic
improvement on/off campus |
|
3. |
Public
Education/Awareness Program
for Traffic Calming |
D |
Award Oct 2001 |
Citywide
public awareness campaign |
|
4. |
Develop
Traffic Calming Informational Tool Box |
OS |
Complete Oct 2001 |
Community
informational materials |
|
5. |
Expand
NASCOP Program |
OS |
Acquire April 2002 |
Acquire
third van/camera system for automated speed enforcement |
|
6. |
Analyze
Possible Use of NASCOP on 35mph Streets |
OS |
To Council Dec 2001 |
Change
in Council policy on application of NASCOP |
|
7. |
Analyze
Effectiveness of New Stop Sign Policy |
OS |
To Council June 2002 |
Comparison
of impact of new policy versus previous policy |
|
8. |
Analyze
Effectiveness of New Crosswalk Guidelines |
OS |
To Council June 2002 |
Comparison
of impact of new guidelines versus previous guidelines |
|
9. |
Review
Traffic Calming Petition Process |
OS |
To Council June 2002 |
Evaluation
of different techniques used to gain community support |
|
10. |
Review
of Traffic Calming Resource Levels |
OS |
Midyear Jan 2002 |
Effectiveness
in meeting policy timelines and workload |
|
11. |
San
Jose State University/New Civic Center Pedestrian Study |
OS |
Report Nov 2001 |
Study
looking at pedestrian demands and enhancements |
|
12. |
Pedestrian
Countdown Signals |
OS |
Report April 2002 |
Analysis
of effectiveness of numerical countdown ped-heads |
|
OS = On Schedule D =
Delayed
C = Complete |
||||
In addition, there are five traffic calming capital improvement projects in the Mayor’s FY 2001-02 Budget Message. The tentative target dates of these projects is shown below:
|
|
Project |
Status |
Tentative Target Date |
Comments |
|
1. |
School
Walking Route Improvements |
OS |
Award April 2002 |
Cesar
Chavez, Lowell, and Meyerholz schools |
|
2. |
McAbee
Median Island |
OS |
Award June 2002 |
Project
Scope/CIP schedule under development |
|
3. |
Bret
Harte Drive Widening |
OS |
Award June 2002 |
Project
Scope/CIP schedule under development |
|
4. |
District
10 In-Road Crosswalk Lights |
OS |
Award April 2002 |
Project
Scope/CIP schedule under development |
|
5. |
District
3 Crosswalk Enhancements |
OS |
Award Feb 2002 |
Project
Scope/CIP schedule under development |
Approximately 1100 requests for traffic calming services, or projects, were received during FY 2000-01. Of these projects, 304 were carried over into FY 2001-02. Requests received during July and August of 2001, the first two months of the new fiscal year, totaled 202. A total of 265 projects were completed during July and August. A balance of 241 projects remained as of August 30.
For the “basic category” of traffic calming projects, Attachment A shows, by Council District, the percentage of projects completed within the traffic calming policy timeliness guidelines. These figures are well below the projected annual target of 63% for several reasons, including the relatively large carryover of projects from the previous fiscal year, the inexperience of new program staff, the changes in new systems and processes, and work on special projects in the traffic calming program.
In regard to the “Level 1 and 2 category” of projects, FY 2001-02 started with 39 projects being carried over. During July and August, only one project (through permanent installation) was completed. However, progress occurred on many of the other projects. At this time, it is premature to report on the performance of the traffic calming policy timeliness guidelines. Attachment B includes a status of all Level 1 and 2 traffic calming projects by Council District.
CONCLUSION
Progress during the first two months of the 2001-02 fiscal year has been steady but has taken longer than anticipated. The level of progress has been frustrating for staff, as well as for some of our residents involved in Level 1 and Level 2 projects. As we have experienced in the past, the summer months proved to be a difficult time to actively engage residents. This summer has also been a period where staff members, new to the traffic calming program, began the process of gaining experience. To provide a concerted effort to complete the Level 1 and 2 projects, consulting agreements will be established for the facilitation of community meetings and the design and installation of permanent improvements. Devices needed for temporary plans were procured. An interdepartmental strike force team has been created to expedite the installation of devices and improvements.
The next quarterly report, to be provided in January 2002, will contain four additional months of traffic calming services and activities. It will represent a more accurate assessment of the performance of the FY 2001-02 traffic calming program and the implementation of the traffic calming policy adopted in June 2001. To ensure ongoing communications with interested Council offices, Department of Transportation staff will provide regularly scheduled and more thorough briefings.
WAYNE K. TANDA
Director of Transportation