LUTC PKT 04-04-2011City of Federai Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Aprit 4, 2011
6:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALl. TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic Title/Description
A. Approva! of Minutes: March 21, 2011
B. NTS Program Policy Review and 21� Ave SW at
SW 304�' NTS Chronology
4. OTHER
Presenter Page
LeMaster
Perez
Action
or Info
Action
Action
Council
Date Time
N/A 5 min.
Apr. 19, 2011 15 min.
Consent
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next LUTC meeting is planned for Monday, April 18, 2011 at
6:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
Committee Members City Staff
Linda Kochmar, Chai� Cary M. Roe, P.E., Drrecto� of Parks, Pub/ic Wo�ks and Emergency Management
Jrm Ferre/% Member Dar/ene LeMaster, Adminisbadve Assistant II
Jack Dbvey, Membe� 253-835-2701
GILUTC�LUTCAgendasand5ummanes2011�4-4-2011 LUTCAgerrda.doc
This page has been left intentionally blank
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Tra�sportation Committee
March 21, 2011
6:00 PM
City Hall
Ciry Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Linda Kochmar, Committee Member Jim Ferrell and Committee
Member Jack Dovey
Council Members in Attendance: Deputy Mayor Duclos
Staff Members in Atteadance: Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Deputy Public
Works Director Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey,
Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Kochmar called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were two public comments:
Nancy Combs, Federal Way — Ms. Combs asked the Committee to reconsider a four-way stop at SW
304' Street at 21S` Ave SW. Ms. Combs expressed tra�c concerns of speeding and lack of police
errforcement her neighborhood. Ms. Combs entered into record a letter from the Adelaide Elementary
School principal requesting a four-way stop at this subject intersection as a means of safery for students
walking to and from school_ Photos of signs at Adelaide Beach were also entered into record. Ms_
Combs wanted to dratic the Committee's attention to the amount ofsignage along the beach, and doesn't
understand why those signs are allowed but two additional stop signs a1 the subject intersection are not_
Staff confirmed that policy and process regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program wiil be
studied and presented at the April 4, 2011 LUTC meeting. Staff will also be prepared to discuss the NTS
program as it relates to SW 304`� St at 21 Ave SW on Aprit 4. Committee members were in agreement that
the policy needs to be in place prior to reviewing a specific location. Committee Member Ferrell stated that
the Committee should not only review the policy, but what are exceptions to the policy and when those
exceptions are allowed. Deputy Mayor Duclos requested that staff notify all residents of the upcoming LUTC
meeting so that they may voice their opinions and concerns over this NTS request. The Committee agreed to
follow policy and standards in this as we(I as future NTS requests.
Derek W. Purton, Federal Way — An email from Mr. Purton was read into record. Mr. Purton urges the
Committee and Council not to proceed with the S 352" Street E.rtension Project from SR 99 to SR 161.
Mr. Purton stated that there are better uses of Ciry funds durirrg these economic times.
3. BUSINESS ITEMS
Forward
Topic Title/Description to Council
A. Approval of the March 7. 2011 LUTC Minutes N/A
Committee approved March 7, 2011, LUTC minutes as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 March 2I, 2010
B.
C.
Mayer Right of Way Lease Agreement Extension
Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum presented information on this itein. There was
no public comment. Committee Member povey asked staff if selling the land to the Mayers was
an option. Mr. Salloum stated that staff has studied various options: long term lease, land
vacation and sa1e, easement, etc. There are RCW's in place that prevent the City from selling
the land. At the time the Lease Agreement was drafted, Council asked to review the agreement
every five years for a maximum three terms, tota}ing 15 years. Mr. Mayer also requested (2007)
to enter into a 99 year lease for $}OOK. The City's legal department determined the City could
not enter into such a lease. Committee Member povey suggested modifying the Lease
Agreement in the future, allowing for extra terms or adding to the allowable overall length of the
lease.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
S 352° Street Extension Project (SR 161 — SR 99): l00% Design Status Report
Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey presented information on this item_ There was no
additional public comment received. Chair Kochmar recused herself due to interest Lakehaven
Utility District has in this project. Committee Member Fenell inquired on the $2.4 Million in
funds from the 2009/2010 Utility Tax, asking if there was any additional funds from this source
and if the project were postponed, w�ould this money be available to the City. Director Roe
stated the $2.4 Million would be available. Director Roe also gave a brief history of the $3
Million transfer from the SR 99 Ph. IV Project, stating these $3 Million in funds had originated
in the S 352" St project, had been transferred to the Ph. IV project when it appeared their may
be a funding shortfall, and are now being transferred back to the original project. Committee
Members Dovey and Ferrell and Deputy Mayor Duclos were in agreement not to proceed with
this project if the City will have to purchase property. �
Committee forwarded Optioo #1 as presented.
Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Kochmar recused.
Apri15, 2011
Consent
April 5, 20l 1
Consent
4. OTHER
Ms. Combs asked to address the Committee in order to praise the tremendously successful ef�'orts of Solid Waste and
Recycling Project Manager Jeanette Brizendine for an exceptional Special Recycling Event, held this past Saturday,
March 19, 20l 1. Ms. Combs was very pleased at the efficient and well orchestrated event, the knowledge of staff and
volunteers working the event and the cheerful customer service she received. Great job Jeanette!
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, April 4, 2011 at 6:00 PM in Ciry Hall Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
'Fhe meeting adjourned at 632 PM.
Attest:
COMMITTEE APPROVAL:
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
Jim Ferrell, Member
Jack Dovey, Member
G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 201 t13-21-11 Minutes.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT NTS Program Policy Review and 21 st & 3U4th NTS Chronology
POLICY QUESTION Should the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program criteria be revised in response to the ongoing
concern voiced about the intersection of 21 �` Avenue SW and SW 304�' Street, and to reflect the treatment of extra-
jurisdicrional balloting?
ITEM #:
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
� �
Ordinance
Resolution
MEETING DATE Apri14 20l 1
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY Rick Perez, City Traffic Eng,meer DEPT: Publ�c Works
__ ......... ... .. _._.. _ . _.__.._.._ __...__. .. . . .__..__.. .. . . .._......._ _ ___ ___. _... .
Attachments: Memo to LUTC dated April 4, 2Q11, with 8 attachments
Options Considered:
Regarding 21 Avenue SW and SW 304' Street:
1. Make no changes to the NTS Policy
2. Change the NTS Policy to reflect Council direction
Regarding the extra-jurisdictional balloting:
1. Revise the NTS Policy to memorialize existing practice to provide balloting results separately by jurisdiction
and jointly for Counci} consideration, per Attachment 8;
2. Revise the NTS Policy to reflect Council direction;
3. Make no changes to the NTS Policy
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Mayor recommends Option 1 on both issues, to make no changes to the NTS
Poticy regarding the all-way stop proposal on 21 S ` Avenue SW and SW 304` Street, and to revise the NTS Policy to
provide balloting results separately and jointly when areas outside the City are balloted.
MAYOR APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: _���
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 1 move to forward Option 1 on both issues to the April 19 , 2011 Consent Agenda
.for approval.
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move approval of Option 1 on both issues, to make no changes to the NTS Policy
regarding the all-way stop proposal on 21 Avenue SW and SW 304` Street, and to revise the NTS Policy to provide
balloting results separately and jointly when areas outside the City are balloted. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY C1TY CLERXS OFF7CE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
� DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACT10N Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 08/IZ/20I0 RESOLUTION #
This page has been left intentionally blank
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Apri14, 20l 1
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management �L
' Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer �
SUBJECT: NTS Program Policy Review and 21st & 304th NTS Chronology
BACKGROUND:
This memorandum provides the Council with the current status of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program
criteria, the history of its application to 21 Avenue SW at SW 304``' Street proposal for an all-way stop, and
addresses the Council request far options on how to handle balloting when the impacted area includes areas
outside the City limits.
Current Policy
Attachment 1 is the current Council-adopted policy. Major policy revisions over time include:
• Modifying the majority reyuirements from 2/3 of all ballots sent to simple majority of ballots returned;
• Not requiring ballots be sent by registered mail;
• Removing separate criteria for the installation of all-way stops and speed humps;
• Including in the balloting area those whose sole source of access would be impacted by the proposal;
• Changing from a single traffic condition of 85`�' percentile speed of 33 mph to a point system based on
speed, volume, and collision history;
� Allowing neighborhoods with severe conditions to bypass the balloting process;
• Adding points for areas with schooIs or parks;
• Allowing principal collector streets to be eligible for the program if the posted speed limit is 25 mph;
• Modifying the volume thresholds for increased points based on the roadway classification (the same
volume would get more points on local street than on a principal collector street);
• Having neighborhoods vote on the entire proposal instead of separate bailoting areas for each new device
proposed;
• Requiring three years between successive attempts to petition far improvements.
It should be noted that the balloting process is strictly advisory to the Council to demonstrate the level of
consensus in the neighborhood, and does not constrain the Council to a particular solution or scope of
improvements. Council has occasionally modified proposals to account for impacts to roadway users beyond the
balloting area, or to provide consistency within a neighborhood even though the balloting results did not support a
consistent result.
Current Practice on Application of All-Wav Stop Control
Staff has approached the use of all-way stop control in a two-tiered review process. 'The first tier is mandated by
the City's adoption in FWRC 19.135.060 of the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
as amended by Washington State. Attachment 2 provides relevant language from the MUTCD. It should be noted
that case law in Washington State has more or less elevated the MUTCD's "should" conditions to "shall"
conditions, with documentation requirements to addr�ss case-by-case exceptions. Particularly frustrating to many
residents concerned about speeding on residential streets is the statement in the MUTCD that "YIELD or STOP
signs should not be used for speed control" (Section 2B.04, Paragraph OS). Attachment 3 is a meta-analysis of
studies conducted on the validity of the MUTCD's standards and guidance statements, demonstrating that the
common perception that stop signs are effective speed control devices is not supported by research.
K:\LUTC�2011\04-05-11 NTS Policy Review.doc
Despite this guidance, the second tier is to use the NTS policy, which used to have specific criteria on the use of
all-way stops for speed control. Over time, speed humps and tables have been able to address most of the
speeding concerns without the use of alt-way stops, and in one instance in West Campus, three unwarranted all-
way stops were replaced with four speed humps, which has proven more effective at managing speeds.
Nonetheless, staff has historically supported the installation of all-way stops as part of a neighborhood consensus
solution under the auspices of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program, in limited circumstances.
Staff has also occasionally used engineering judgment, as allowed in the MUTCD, to install all-way stop control
outside of the NTS process to address site-specific concerns, usually to address intersection sight distance
restrictions.
Summarv of NTS Actions on 21 Avenue SW
The last update on this topic at LUTC was on January 4, 2010, contained in Attachment 4. Attachment 5 is
November 2, 2009 memo to LUTC outlining the previous history, with its associated attachments. Attachment 6
is a collection of the public comments received by staff generated by the last petition received in 2008.
Attachment 7 is a letter from the Principal of Adelaide Elementary Schooi, supporting the request for an all-way
stop control. In summary, despite a number of attempts, a proposal for all-way stop control at the intersection of
21S` Avenue SW and SW 304` Street does not meet either the MUTCD criteria or the NTS criteria and does not
appear to be supported by the majority of residents. The speeding issues have been resolved to the greatest extent
to be expected from traffic calming devices, and staff does not believe that an all-way stop would reduce
speeding, and may be counterproductive to the goal of improving safety at the intersection.
A new petition may be submitted on this topic in May 2011, and requires signatures from 10 households in the
vicinity.
Extra-iurisdictional Balloting
Council had requested that staff consider addressing how to treat ballots when a balloting area, as currently
defined in the NTS policy, extends beyond City limits. In the recent instance of the Enterprise ' l 0 NTS Project
on 18` and 20`'' Avenues SW south of SW 356`�' Street, the balloting area extended into Tacoma. Staff had
presented the ballot results separately by jurisdiction and jointly so that the Council could weigh the balloting
results on a jurisdictional basis, and proposes to memorialize this practice in the NTS Policy, as shown in
Attachment 8.
K:\LUTC�2011\04-05-11 NTS Policy Review.doc
` GTY OF �
Federa! Way
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program
Existing residential neighborhoods in the City of Federal Way may be considered for the NTS
program in order to control traffic speeds, reduce cut-through traffic and improve documented
pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. Neighborhoods are defined by elementary school attendance
areas. The NTS program should not be confused with other City processes required of new
subdivisions or commercial developments. The NTS program consists of three phases (the three E's)
in the following order: 1) Education, 2) Enforcement, and then 3) Engineering:
I) Education:
The education phase is intended to increase neighborhood awareness of local speeding issues.
In many cases, a handful of speeders are known to the neighborhood and could use a
reminder to change their driving behavior. A neighborhood watch program may be launched
that could use the folIowing tools:
• Include a general article in your homeowner association's (HOA) and/or local school
newsletters to remind residents about the importance of abeying speed limits, and to warn
residents to be on the watch for speeding traffic. In many cases, the driver is
unintentionally speeding and a friendly reminder would be effective.
• Contact the Police Department at (253) 835-6775 to request piacement of a speed trailer
(speed reader board) in your neighborhood. Depending on the location and driver
population, this device may change driver behavior for an indefinite time period.
Volunteers willing to help the Police Department are always appreciated; please call
(253) 835-6730 if interested in volunteering in this program.
Form.a speed watch group to document incidents of speeding. Be snre to include any
vehicle information: colors, makes, models, license numbers, and the dates and times
they pass through a specific location. This information, when compiled for several
weeks, should then be submitted to a selected speed watch program manager_ Several
reports of speeding for the same vehicle should then be reported to Ehe Police Department
for enforcement so that officers may more effectively target locations at specific times for
emphases patrol.
II) Enforcement:
The second phase of the NTS program is special enforcement. It may take some drivers a
more drastic method (speeding tickets) to change their driving behavior. This usually works
for local residential speeds with minimum cut-through traffic. In some cases, the Engineering
phase is needed to address the speeding issue.
III) Engineering:
Citizens that have any questions regarding the NTS program may call the Public Works
Department at (253) 835-2700. The NTS program allows the installation of traffic calming
devices such as speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, traffic circles, chicanes,
signing, pavement marking, or other approved devices. These devices shall only be installed
when the following general conditions and criteria are met:
Attac�tment 1— Page 1 of 4
A- General Conditions:
1. Less restrictive means of controlling speed (Education and Enforcement) have been
attempted without success.
2. The proposed devices may be installed on residential streets functionally classified as
local or minor collector. Some devices that do not severely delay emergency vehicles,
such as speed tables or roundabouts, may be permitted on principal collectors as long as
the posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph.
3. No devices shall be installed within 600 feet of a traffic signaI or 250 feet of a stop sign.
As measured along the major roadway movement.
4. For vertical deflection devices, no adverse street characteristics e�st, such as steep
grades in excess of 8%. In all cases, sight distance standards must be met.
5. Storm drainage problems created by the installation of the proposed devices can be
adequately addressed.
6. Each neighborhood may-apply for traffic calming devices costing a maximum of $15,000
per year. If the proposed devices cost more than this, amount, the neighborhood may
form a Local Improvement District (LID) to fund the excess amount. Otherwise, the City
may phase and fund the excess amount in a future year (minimum of 12 months from
installation) and based on a first-come, first-serve basis.
7. The City will not fund the installation of traffic calming devices in cul-de-sacs that are
less than 600 feet long.
B- Installation Process and Criteria
1) To be considered for the installation of traffic calming devices, a City prepared or
approved petition must be submitted to the City. The petition must be signed by owners
or residents representing at least ten parcels within the affected area specifying the
problem's nature and exact project location and limits. Petitions for proposals that were
not successfully im�lemented due to failure to meet the NTS criteria or failure to pass a
ballot �ronosal in previous attempts will onlv be considered in the followinQ instances:
a. The proposal was not implemented due to bud�etary constraints and the criteria
continue to be met; or
b. As deternvned by the Public Works Direcror. traffic conditions have chan ed�due
to roadway improvements or land use chan eg s; or
c. At least 36 months has passed since the failure of a previous attemvt.
2) A traffic study will then be conducted to see if the program technical criteria (severity
score) is met. Currently, the City considers four criteria to qualify a street for traffic
calming devices:
a) Majority Speed: The 85`" percentile speed averaged for both directions.
b) Volume: The Average Daily Traffic total of both directions.
c) Location: Half a point is given for streets fronting parks, schools, or designated
school crossings.
d) Collisions: A five-year reported collision history (frequency and severity) is
investigated for collisions that may be correctable by traffic calming devices.
Dependi�►g on roadway functional classification, each criterion is scored on a scaie of 0.0
to 3.0 points as shown in Tables 1 through 3 below. The total severity score is added for
Attachment 1— Page 2 of 4 �4
each category for a maximum 15.5 points. A three point minimum severity score is
needed to continue with the program regardless of how the points were collected:
Table 1
Local Residential Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total in'u Fatai
0.0 0-25 0-500 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 50 t- 600 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 60f - 700 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 701 - 800 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 801 - 900 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 901 -1,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 1, 001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 2
Minor Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histor
Scale S eed Traffic ADT) School/Park Total In'u Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0- 1,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 1,001 — 1,800 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 1,801 — 2,600 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 2,601 — 3,400 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 3,401 — 4,200 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 4,201 — 5,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 5,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 3
Principal Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Hisfo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'ur Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0- 5,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 5,001 - 7,000 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 7,001 - 9,000 - 3 1 -
i.5 30 - 31 9,001 - 11,000 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 11,001 - 13,000 -. 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 13,001 - 15,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 15,001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
3) If a project does not meet the 3-point minimum severity score, the contact petitioner is
informed about the study results and is asked to inform those who signed the petition of
the results. In such a case, additional education and enforcement would be the proposed
solution.
K:\TRAFFICINTS\2008 NFS Revisions�N1'S Program rev OS-06-O8.doc
3/4
Attachment 1- Page 3 of 4
4) If the project meets the above criteria, the City will hold a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various traffic calming devices and to
develop a consensus solution. In addition to residents, staff from the SchooI District,
Police, and Fire Departments may also be invited. Public meetings are usually advertised
by posting signs on the subject roads.
5) Ballots are sent to all properties abutting the streets and are within 600 feet (measured
along street centerlines) of the proposed project location. Ballots are also sent to
properties where the proposed devices would be Iocated along their sole access route as
determined by the Public Works Director. Only one ballot will be issued per housing unit
address. A simple majority (more than 50 %) of returned ballots is necessary to carry the
project forward to City Council for final approval. The ballots are only utilized to
measure neighborhood project support and are advisory to Council who may modify the
proposal.
6) The ballot results may be delivered to the neighborhood utilizing signs on the street or by
conducting a second neighborhood meeting.
7) If a project's severity score is at least 6 points, staff may develop a proposal with citizen
input and the balloting process may be bypassed.
8) lf the ballot measure passes or if the total severity score is at least 6 points, the proposal
is presented to the City Council sub-committee, and if passed, is then presented to the full
Council for final approval.
9) If the ballot measure fails, a three-year waiting period is required to restart the process.
10) If approved by Council, the traffic calming devices would be installed as soon as budget,
weather, and the contractor's schedule permits.
C- Removal Process and Criteria
Traffic calming devices may be removed when all of the following criteria are met:
1) A City prepared or approved petition signed by owners or residents representing 10 or
more lots within the affected area must be submitted to the City. The affected area
includes properties abutting streets within 600 feet of the existing device location,
measured along street centerlines, and properties which the existing devices are located
along their sole access route as determined by the Public Works Director, and
2) Property owners and residents within the affected area shall be sent a City prepared or
approved ballot by first class mail. More than 50 % of the returned ballots must vote
affirmatively, concurring with the removal of devices. This ballot is advisory to City
Council, who may modify the proposal, and
3) An adequate review period (minimum of 12 months from installation) and subseyuent
engineering analysis has been performed to determine the traffic characteristics along the
route and the impacts to the remaining street system.
Attachment 1— Page 4 of 4
K:\TRAFFIC\NTS\2008 NTS Revisions\NTS Program rev OS-06-08.doc 4/4
2009 Edition
Table 2B-1. Regulatory 5ign and Plaque Sizes (Sheet 4 of 4)
Notes: 1. Larger signs may be used when appropriate
2. Dimensions irt inches are shown as width x height
Page 49
07 Where side roads intersect a multi-lane street or highway that has a speed limit of 45 mph or higher,
the minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches, even if the side road only has one
approach lane, shall be 36 x 36 inches.
os Where side roads intersect a multi-lane street or highway that 6as a speed limit of 40 MPH or lower, the
minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches shail be as shown in the Single Lane or
Multi-lane columns of Table 2B-1 based on the number of approach lanes on the side street approach.
Guidance:
os The minimum sizes for regulatory signs facing traffic on exit and entrance ramps should be as shown in the
column of Table 2B-I that corresponds to the mainline roadway classification (E�pressway or Freeway). If a
minimum size is not provided in the Freeway column, the minimum size in the Expressway codumn should be
used. If a minimum size is not provided in the Freeway or Expressway Column, the size in the Oversized column
should be used.
Section 2B.04 R �ght-of-WaX at Intersections
Support:
61 State or local laws written in accordance with the "Uniform Vehicle Code" (see Section IA.11) establish
the right-of-way rule at intersections having no regulatory traffic control signs such that the driver of a vehicle
approaching an intersection must yield the right-of-way to any vehick or pedestrian already in the intersection.
December 2009 Sect. 2B.03 to 2B.04
Attachment 2— Page 1 of 4
' See Table 96-1 for minimum size required for signs on bicycle facilities
Page 50
2009 Edition
When two vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time, the
right-of-way ruIe requires the driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
The right-of-way can be modified at through streets or highways by placing YIELD (Rl-2) signs (see Sections 2B.08
and 2B.09) or STOP (Rl-1) signs (see Sections 2B.05 through 2B.07) on one or more approaches.
Guidance:
oz Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors should be
considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches;
B. Number and angle of approaches;
C. Approach speeds;
D. Sight distance available on each approach; and
E. Reported crash experience.
oa YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions exist:
A. An intersection of a less important road with a mafn road where application of the normal right-of-way
rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law;
B. A street entering a designated through highway or street,• and/or
C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
oa In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets
or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following
conditions exist:
A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches
averages more than 2,000 units per day;
B. The ability to see confficting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield
in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way at the
intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three
or more such crashes have been reparted within a 2-year period.
05 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
Support:
os Section 2B.07 contains provisions regarding the application of multi-way STOP control at an intersection.
Guidance:
o� Once the decision has been made to controd an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway
to control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of
traffre shauld be controlled.
oa A YIELD or STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an
engineering study.
Support:
os The folIowing are considerations that migh[ influence the decision regarding the appropriate roadway
upon which to install a YIELD or STOP sign where two roadways with relatively equal volumes and/or
characteristics intersect:
A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school
walking routes;
B. Controlling the direction [hat has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower
operating speeds; and
C. Controlling the direction that has the best sight distance from a controlled position to observe
conHicting traffic.
Standard:
�o Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs
shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases:
A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times;
B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic
control signal, bnt does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low
potential for conflict exists; or
C. Tf a channelized turn Iane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island and the
channelized tnrn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal.
se��. zs.oa Attachment 2— Page 2 of 4 �cember2009
2009 Edition Page 51
li Except as provided in Section 2B.09, STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be installed on different
approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches conflict with or oppose each other.
�2 Portable or part-time STOP or YIELD signs shall not be nsed except for emergency and temporary
traffic controt zone purposes.
�s A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is manually placed into view and mannally removed
from view shall not be nsed during a power outage to control a signalized approach unless the maintaining
agency establishes that the signal indication that will first be displayed to that approach upon restoration of
power is a 8ashing red signal indication and that the portable STOP sign will be manually removed from
view prior to stop-and-go operation of the traffic control signal.
Option:
ia A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is electrically or mechanically operated such that it only
displays the STOP message during a power outage and ceases to display the STOP inessage upon restoration of
power may be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach.
Support:
�5 Section 9B.03 contains provisions regarding the assignment of priority at a shared-use path/
roadway intersection.
Section 2B.05 STOP Sig�(Rl- 1 and AI,I, WAY Pla�ize_(Rl-3Pl
Standard:
oi When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection, a STOP
(Rl-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be used.
02 The STOP sign shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a ced background.
os Secondary legends shall not be used on STOP sign faces.
oa At intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs (see Section 2B.07), an ALL
WAY supplemental plaque (Rl-3P) shall be mounted below each STOP sign. The ALL WAY plaque
(see Figure 2B-1) shall have a white tegend and border on a red background.
os The ALL WAY plaque shall only be used if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs.
os Supplemental plaques with legends such as 2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, or other numbers of ways shall not
be used with STOP signs.
Support:
o� The use of the CROSS TRAFFTC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4P) plaque (and other plaques with variaUons of
this word message) is described in Section 2C.59_
Guidance:
os Pdaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP
(W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) should be used at intersections where
STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a
one-way street.
Option:
os An EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (Rl-lOP) plaque (see Figure 2B-1) may be mounted below the STOP sign if an
engineering study determines that a special combination of geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it
possible for right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the intersection without stopping.
Support:
to The design and application of Stop Beacons are described in Section 4L.05.
Figure 26-1. STOP and YIELD Signs and Plaques
Ri-1
ALWAY
R1-2
TO EXCEPT
ONCOMING RIGHT
TRAFFiC TURN
Rf -2aP R1-10P
December 2009 Sect. 2B.04 to 2B.05
Attachment 2— Page 3 of 4
Page 52
Section 2B.06 STOP Sig�,�plications
Guidance:
2009 Edition
oi At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less
restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09).
02 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment
indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic votumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day;
B. A restricted view exists that requares road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic
on the through street or highway; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of
a STOP sign have been reported within a I2-month period, or that ftve or more such crashes have been
reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the
minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.
Support:
os The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 8B.05.
Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Sto��,Rplications
Support:
o� Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting
other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi-�vay stop applications.
Guidance:
os The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study.
oa The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the mudti-way stop is an interim measure that can be
installed guickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the trafftc
control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a]2-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop
installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
l. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both
approczches) averages at least 300 vehicdes per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycZe volume entering the intersection from the minor
street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8
hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the highest hour; but
3. If the 85```-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum
vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.
D. Where no single criierion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C_I, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of
the minimum vadues. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Option:
os Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The �eed to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the
intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating
characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of
the intersection.
Sect.2B.06to2B.07 Attachment 2— Page 4 of 4 December2009
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 1 of 11
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct!
W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.(M)
Abstract
This paper reviewed over 70 technical papers covering all-way stops (or multi-way stops) and their
success and failure as tra�c control devices in residential areas. This study is the most comprehensive
found on multi-way stop signs
The study looked at how multi-ivay stop signs have been used as tra�c calming measures to control
speed. There have been 23 hypotheses studied using multi-way stop as speed control. The research
found an additional9 hypotheses studied showing the eff'ect multi way stops have on other tra�c
engineering problems.
The research found that, overwhelmingly, multi-way stop signs do NOT control speed except under very
limited conditions. The research shows that the concerns about unwarr-anted stop signs are well
founded.
Introduction
Many elected officia}s, citizens and some traffic engineering professionals feel that multi-way stop signs
should be used as traffic calming devices. Many times unwarranted stop signs are installed to control
traffic. The Manual on Uniform Traff c Control Devices (MUTCD)(16) describes warrants for installing
multi-way stop signs. However, it does not describe many of the problems caused by the instaltation of
unwarranted stop signs. These problems include concerns like liability issues, traffic noise, automobile
pollution, traffic enforcement and driver behavior.
This paper is a result of searching over 70 technical papers about multi-way stop signs. The study
concentrated on their use as traffic calming devices and their relative effectiveness in controlling speeds
in residential neighborhoods. The references found 23 hypotheses on their relative effectiveness as
traffic calming devices. One study analyzed the economic cost of installing a multi-way stop at an
intersection. The reference search also found 9 hypotheses about traffic operations on residential streets.
The literature search found 85 papers on the subject of multi-way stops. There are probably many more
references available on this very popular subject. The seventy-one references are shown in Appendix A.
There was a problem finding the I4 papers found in literature searches. The 14 papers are listed in
Appendix B for information only. Most of the papers were from old sources and are probably out of
print.
Multi-Way Stop Signs as Speed Control Devices
A summary of the articles found the following information about the effectiveness of multi-way stop
signs and other solutions to controliing speeds in residential neighborhoods.
� Attachment 3— Page 1 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htrn 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Conect Page 2 of 11
1. Multi-way stops do not control speeds. Twenty-two papers were cited for these findings. ( Reference 1,
2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, I5, 16, 17, 19, 20, 39, 45, 46, 51, 55, 62, 63, 64, 66 and 70).
2. Stop compliance is poor at unwarranted multi-way stop signs. Unwarranted stop signs means they do
not meet the warrants of the MUTCD. This is based on the drivers feeling that the signs have no traffic
control purpose. There is little reason to yield the right-of -way because there are usually no vehicles on
the minor street. Nineteen references found this to be their finding. ( Reference 7, 8,10,12,13, I4,15,17,19,
20, 39, 45, 46, Sl, 55, 61, 62, 63 and 64 ).
3. Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen
references found this to be their finding. (Reference 19 (1 study), 55 (5 studies), 60 (8 studies) and 64(5 studies)).
4. Unwarranted multi-way stops increased speed some distance from intersections. The studies
hypothesizing that motorists are making up the time they lost at the "unnecessary" stop sign. Fifteen
references found this to be their finding.( Reference 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20,39, 45,46, 51, 55, 70 and 71).
5. Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs based on vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel
times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions. Fifteen references found this to be their
ftnding. (Reference 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, I5, 17, 45, 55 ,61, 62, 63, 67 and 68).
6. Safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted multi-way stops, especially small children. It seems
that pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at the stop signs but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of
running the "unnecessary" stop sign. Thirteen references found this to be their finding. (References 7, 8, 10,
13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 45, S1, 55 and 63).
7. Citizens feel "safer" in communities "positively controlled" by stop signs. Positively controlled is
meant to infer that the streets are controlled by unwarranted stop signs. Homeowners on the residential
collector feel safer on a'calmed' street. Seven references found this to be their finding. (Reference 6,14,18,
20, 51, 58 and 66).
Hypothesis twelve (below) lists five references that dispute the results of these studies.
8. Speeding problems on residential streets are associated with" through" traffic. Frequently
homeowners feel the problem is created by 'outsiders'. Many times the problem is the person
complaining or their neighbor. Five references found this to be their finding. (References 2, 15, 45, 51 and
55).
9. Unwarranted multi-way stops may present potential liability problems for undocumented exceptions
to accepted warrants. Local jurisdictions feel they may be incurring higher liability exposure by
'violating' the MUTCD. Many times the unwarranted stop signs are installed without a warrant study or
some documentation. Cited by six references. (Reference 7, 9, 19, 46, 62 and 65).
10. Stop signs increase noise in the vicinity of an intersection. The noise is created by the vehicle
braking noise at the intersection and the cars accelerating up to speed. The noise is created by the engine
exhaust, brake, tire and aerodynamic noises. Cited by five references. (Reference 14, 17, 20, 45, 55).
11. Cost of installing multi-way stops are low but enforcement costs are prohibitive. many communities
do not have the resources to effectively enforce compliance with the stop signs. Five references found
this to be their finding. (Reference 1, 10, 45, 51, 55 ).
12. Stop signs do not significantly change safety of intersection. Stop signs are installed with the hope
they will make the intersection and neighborhood safer. Cited by five references. (Reference 55, 60, 61, 62,
Attachment 3- Page 2 of I1
3/23/2011
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 3 of 11
63).
Hypothesis seven (above) lists seven references that dispute the results of these studies.
13. Unwarranted multi-way stops have been successfully removed with public support and result in
improved compliance at justified stop signs. Cited by three references. (Reference 8,10,12).
14. Unwarranted multi-way stops reduce accidents in cities with intersection sight distance problems and
at intersections with parked cars that restrict sight distance. The stop signs are unwarranted based on
volume and may not quite meet the accident threshold. Cited by three references. (Reference 6,18, 68).
15. Citizens feel stop signs should be installed at locations based on traffic engineering studies. Some
homeowners realize the importance of installing 'needed' stop signs. Cited by two references. (References
56, 57 ).
16. Multi-way stops can reduce cut-through traffic volume if many intersections along the road are
controlled by stop signs. If enough stop signs are installed on a residential or collector street motorists
may go another way because of the inconvenience of having to start and stop at so many intersections.
This includes the many drivers that will not stop but slowly'cruise' through the stop signs. This driving
behavior has been nicknamed the'California cruise'. Cited by two references. (Reference 14, 61).
17. Placement of unwarranted stop signs in vioiation of Georgia State Law 32-6-50 (a) (b} (c). This
study was conducted using Georgia law. Georgia law requires local governments to install all traffic
controls devices in accordance with the MUTCD. This is probably similar to traffic signing laws in other
states. Cited by two references. (Reference 19, 62).
18. Special police enforcement of multi-way stop signs has limited effectiveness. This has been called
the'hallo' effect. Drivers will obey the'unreasonable' laws as long as a policemen is visible. Cited by
two references. (Reference 39, 46).
19. District judge orders removal of stop signs not installed in compliance with city ordinance. Judges
have ordered the removal of'unnecessary' stop signs. The problem begins when the traffic engineer
andlor etected officials are asked to consider their intersection a'special case'. This creates a precedent
and results in a proliferation of'speciai case' all-way stop signs. Cited by two references. (Reference 59,
62).
20. Some jurisdictions have created warrants far multi-way stops that are easier to meet than MUTCD.
The jurisdiction feel that the MUTCD warrants are too difficult to meet in residential areas. The reduced
warrants are usually created to please elected officials. Cited by two references. (xeference 61 and 70).
21. Citizens perceive stop signs are effective as speed control devices because traffic "slows" at stop
sign. If everybody obeyed the traffic laws, stop signs would reduce speeds on residential streets. Cited
by one reference. (Reference 55).
22. Removal of multi-way stop signs does not change speeds but they are slightly lower without the stop
signs. This study findings support the drivers behavior referenced in item #4, speed increases when
unwarranted stop signs are installed. Speed decreases when the stop signs were removedt Cited by one
reference. (Reference 64).
23. Multi-way stops degrade air quality and increase CO, HC, and Nox. All the starting and stopping at
the intersection is bad for air quality. Cited by one reference. (Reference 68).
Attachment 3— Page 3 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/mult�way.htm
3/23/20I l
Muiti-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 4 of 11
Speed Control Issues
24. There area many ways to "calm" traffic. Cited by twenty references. (Reference 1 , l4, 20, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37, 38, 40,41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53 and 66).
They include:
(a) Traffic Chokers ( fl Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Solutions
(b) Traffic Diverters (g) Neighborhood Street Design
(c) Speed Humps (h) On-Street Parking
(d) Roundabouts (i) One Way Streets
(e) Neighborhood Speed Watch (j) Street Narrowing
25. Other possible solutions to residential speed. Most speeding is by residents - Neighborhood Speed
Watch Programs may work. This program works by using the principle of'peer' pressure. �Cited by seven
references. (Reference 2, 30, 31, 36, 42, 48 and 53).
26. Reduced speed limits are not effective at slowing traffic. Motorists do not drive by the number on
the signs, they travel a safe speed based on the geometrics of the roadway. Cited by five references.
(Reference 1, 20, 39, 46 and 69).
27. Local streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds. The most effective way to slow
down traffic on residentiai streets is to design them for slow speeds. Cited by two references. (Reference
43, 52).
28. Speeding on residential streets is a seasonal problem. This is a myth. The problem of speeding is not
seasonal, it's just that homeowners only see the problem in 'pleasant' weather. That's the time they spend
in there front yard or walking the neighborhood. Cited by one reference. (Reference 2).
29. Speed variance and accident frequency are directly related. The safest speed for a road is the speed
that most of the drivers feel safest driving. This speed creates the lowest variance and the safest road.
Cited by one reference. (Reference 47).
30. 1'he accident involvement rate is Iowest at the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the
speed that most drivers feel comfortable driving. The lowest variance is usually from the 85th percentile
speed and the 10 mph less. Cited by one reference. (xeference 47).
31. Psycho-perc�ptive transverse pavement markings are not effective at reducing the 85th percentile
speed but do reduce the highest speed percentile by 5 MPH. Cited by one reference. (Reference 47).
32. The safest residential streets would be short (0.20 miles) non-continuous streets that are 26 to 30 feet
from curb to curb width. The short streets make it difficult of drivers to get up to speed. Cited by one
reference. (Reference 52).
Attachment 3— Page 4 of 11
3/23/2411
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows th� MUTCD is Correct
Economics of Multi-Wav Stop Signs
Page 5 of 11
Studies have found that installing unwarranted stop signs increases operating costs for the traveling
public. The operating costs involve vehicle operating costs, costs for increased delay and travel time,
cost to enforce signs, and costs for fines and increases in insurance premiums.
The total costs are as follows (Reference 55):
Operating Costs (1990)
($.04291 /Stop)
Delay & Travel Costs (1990)
($.03401 /Stop)
Enforcement Costs (1990)
Cost of Fines (19 per year)
Cost of 2 stop signs ( l 990)
$ 111,737/year
$ 88,556 /year
$ 837/year
$ 1,045/year
$ 280
Costs of increased insurance (1990) $7,606/year
Total (1990) $210,061/year/intersection
The cost to install two stops signs is $280. The cost to the traveling public is $210,061 (1990) per year in
operating costs. This cost is based on about 8,000 vehicles entering the intersection per day.
Another study (62) found that the average annual road user cost increased by $2,40292 (1988 cost) per
intersection when converting from two to four way stop signs for low volume intersections.
Summarv of Stop Signs as Speed Control Devices
Researchers found that multi-way stop signs do not control speed. In analyzing the 23 hypotheses for
multi-way stop signs, five were favorable and 18 vvere unfavorable toward installing unwarranted all-
way stop signs. The Chicago study (6) was the only research paper that showed factual support for
"unwarranted" multi-way stop signs. They were found to be effective at reducing accidents at
intersections that have sight distance problems and on-street parking.
It is interesting to note that residential speeding problems and multi-way stop sign requests date back to
1930 (63). The profession still has not "solved" this perception problem.
Summarv of Economic Anal�
Benefits to control speeds by installing multi-way stop signs are perceived rather than actual and the
Attachment 3— Page 5 of 11
http://troymi.govltrafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops -'The Research Shows the MLTTCD is Correct Page 6 of 11
costs for the driving public are far greater than any benefits derived from the installation of the multi-
way stop signs.
W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.
Chief Engineer, Traffic Studies Section
Gwinnett County Department of Transportation
75 Langley Drive
Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045
770-822-7412
brethema@co.gwinnett.ga.us
Appendix A
References used in Research of Multi-Way Stop Signs
1. Gerald L. Ullman, "Neighborhood Speed Control - U.S. Practices", ITE Compendium of Technical
Papers, 1996, pages 111- 115.
2. Richard F. Beaubein, "Controlling Speeds on Residential Streets", ITE Journal, April 1989, pages 37-
39.
3. "4 Way Stop Signs Cut Accident Rate 58% at Rural Intersections", ITE Journal, November 1984,
pages 23-24.
4. Michael Kyte & Joseph Marek, "Collecting Traffic Data at All-Way Stop Controlled
Intersections", ITE Journal, April 1989, pages 33-36.
5. Chan, Flynn & Stocker, "Volume Delay Relationship at Four Way Stop Controlled
Intersections: A Response Surface Model", ITE Journal, March 1989, pages 27-34.
6. La Plante and Kripidlowkdki, "Stop Sign Warrants: Time for Change", ITE Journal, October 1992,
pages 25-29.
7. Patricia B. Noyes, "Responding to Citizen Requests for Multi Way Stops", ITE Journal, January 1994,
pages 43-48.
8. Chadda and Carter, "Multi-Way Stop Signs - Have We Gone Too Far?", ITE Journal, May 1983,
pages 19-2I.
9. Gary Moore,"Gwinnett County Legal Opinions on Unwarranted Multi-�Vay Stops",
Attachment 3— Page 6 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 7 of 11
March 6,1990.
10. Chadda and Carter, " The Changing Role of Multi-Way Stop Control", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1983, pages 4-31 to 4-34.
11. Lovell and Haver, "The Safety Effect of Conversion to All-Way Stop Control", Transportation
Research Record 1068, pages 103-107.
12. "Indiana Suggests Ways to Halt Stop Sign Misuse", Transafety Reporter, February 1989, page 7.
1978.
14. "State of the Art: Residentiat Traffic Management", US DOT, FHWA/RD-80/092, December 1980,
pages 63-65, 22-23.
15. Dick Williams, "A New Direction for Traffic Dispute", Atlanta Journal, January 14, I988, Section E,
page 1.
16. "Warrants for Multi-Way Stop Signs" (2B-6), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US
DOT , FHWA, pages 2B-3 to 2B-4.
17. "Stop and Yield Sign Control", Traffic Control Devices Handbook, US DOT, FHWA, I983, pages
2-14 to 2-16.
18. La Pante & Kropidlowdki, "Stop Sign Warrants ", Presented at ITE Conference, San Diego, CA,
September 18, 1989.
19. Walt Rekuc, "Traffic Engineering Study of Multi-Way Stop Signs", City of Rosweil,
February 15, 1988.
20. Homburger, etal, Residential Street Desi�n and Traffic Control, ITE, Washington, DC, 1989.
21. Speed Zone Guidelines, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993_
22. A Policv on Geometric Design of Hi�hwavs and Streets, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 1994.
23. A.J. Ballard, "Efforts to Control Speeds on Residential Collector Streets", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1990, pages 445-448.
24. C.E. Walter, "Suburban Residential Traffic Calming", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, I 994,
pages 445-448.
25. K.L. Gonzalez, " Neighborhood Traffic Control: Bellevue's Approach", ITE Journal, Vol. 43, No.S,
May 1993, pages 43-45.
26. Brian Kanely & B.E. Fems, "Traffic Diverter's for Residential Traffic Control - The Gainesville
Experience", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, pages 72-76.
Attachment 3— Page 7 of 11
://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm
3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 8 of 11
27. Marshall Elizer, "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1993, pages 11-15.
28. T. Mazella & D. Godfrey, "Building and Testing a Customer Responsive Neighborhood Traffic
Control Program", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1995, pages 75-79.
29. W.M. Bretherton and J.E. Wombie, "Neighborhood Traffic Management Program", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1992, pages 398-401.
30. J.E. Womble, "Neighborhood Speed Watch: Another Weapon in the Residential Speed
Control Arsenal", ITE Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2, February 1990, pages 1- 17.
31. Michael Wallwork, "Traffic Calming", The Genesis Group, unpublished.
32. Doug Lemov, "Calming Traffic", Governin�, August 1996, pages 25-27.
33. Michael Wallwork, "Traffic Calming", The Traffic Safetv Toolbox, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993,
pages 234-245.
34. Ransford S. McCourt, Neighborhood Traffic Management Survey, ITE District 6, Technical Chair,
unpublished, June 3, 1996.
35. Halbert, etal, "Implementation of Residential Traffic Control Program in the City of San Diego",
District 6 Meeting, July 1993.
36. Anton Dahlerbrush, "Speed Humps & Implementation and Impact on Residential Traffic Control",
City of Beverly Hills, California, District 6 Meeting, July 1993.
37. Firoz Vohra, "Modesto Speed Hump Experience", District 6, ITE Meeting, July 1993.
38. Patricia Noyes, "Evaluation of Traditional Speed Reduction in Residential Area",
District 6 ITE Meeting, July 1993.
39. Cynthia L. Hoyle, Traffic Calmin�, American Planning Association, Report No 456, July I995.
40. Sam Yager, Use of Roundabouts, ITE Technical Council Committee, SB- 17,
Washington, DC, February 1992.
41. Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Desi�n, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993.
42. Residential Streets, 2nd Edition, ASCE, NAHB & ULI, 1990.
43. Traffic Calmin�, Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation, Australia, 1989.
44. Traffic Calming in Practice, Department of Transport, etal, London, November 1994.
Attachment 3- Page 8 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 9 of 11
45. Todd Long, "The LJse of Traffic Control Measures in the Prevention of Through Traffic Movement
on Residential Streets", unpublished, Masters Thesis, Georgia Tech, September 1990.
46. Patricia Noyes, "Evaluation of Traditional Speed Reduction Efforts in Residential Areas", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, District 6 Meeting, 1993, pages 61-66.
47: G.E. Frangos, "Howard County's Speed Control in Residential Areas Utilizing Psycho-perceptive
Tra�c Controls", ITE Compendium of Technicai Papers, 1985, pages 87-92.
48. Haibert, etal, "Implementation of Residential Traffic Control Program in the City of San Diego", I`TE
Compendium of Technical Papers, District 6, 1993, pages 23-60.
49. Radwan & Sinha, "Gap Acceptance and Delay at Stop Controlled Intersections on Multi-Lane
Divided Highways", ITE Journal, March 1980, page 38.
50. Borstel, "Traffic Circles : Seattle's Experience", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers,
1985, page 77.
51. D. Meier, "The Policy Adopted in Arlington County, VA, for Solving Real and Perceived Speeding
Problems on Residential Streets", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, I 985, page 97.
52. Jeff Clark, "High Speeds and Volumes on Residential Streets: An Analysis of
PhysicalCharacteristics as Causes in Sacramento, California", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers,
1985, page 93.
53. Wiersig & Van Winkle, "Neighborhood Traffic Management in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, page 82.
54. Improving Residential Street Environments, FHWA RD-81-031, 1981.
55. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., "Effectiveness of Stop Signs When Installed to Control Speeds Along
Residential Streets", Proceedings from Southern District ITE Meeting, Richmond, Virginia, April 17,
1993.
56. Arthur R. Theil, "Let Baton Rouge's Traffic Engineers Decide Whether Signs Are Needed", State
Times, LA, August 30, 1983.
57. Gary James, "Merits Being Totally Ignored in T'his Instance", Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA,
July 30,1983.
58. James Thomason, "Traffic Signs Allow Crossing", Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, July 30,
1983.
59. "City-Parish Must Move Stop Signs", Mornin�Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, 1983.
60. Synthesis of Safety Research Reiated to Traffic Control and Roadwav Elements, Vol. 2, FHWA
Washington, D. C., 19982_
61. B.H. Cottrell, Jr.,"Using All-Way Stop Control for Residentiai Traffic Management",
Attachment 3— Page 9 of I l
http:l/troymi.gov/ trafficengineering/rr5ultiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 10 of I 1
Report No. FHWA VTRC 96-R17, Virginia Transportation Research Councit, Charlottesville, Virginia,
January, 1996.
62. Eck & Diega, "Field Evaluation at Multi-Way Versus Four-Way Stop Sign Control at Low Volume
Intersections in Residential Areas", Transportation Research Record 1160, Washington, DC, 1988,
pages 7-13.
63. Hanson, "Are There Too Many Four-Way Stops?", Traffic Engineering, November 1957, pages 20-
22, 42.
64. Beaubien, "Stop Signs for Speed Control", ITE Journal, November 1976, pages 26-28.
65. Antwerp and Miller, "Control of Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods : SomeConsiderations for
Implementation", Transportation 10, 1981, pages 35-49.
66. Lipinski, "Neighborhood Traffic Controls", Transportation En in�ng Journal, May 1979, pages
213-221.
67. Richardson,"A Delay Model for Multi-Way Stop Sign Intersections", TransportationResearch
Record 1112, Washington, DC, 1987, pages 107-114.
68. Briglin, "An Evaluation of Four-Way Stop Sign Control", ITE Journal, August 1982,
pages 16-19.
69. Ullman and Dudek, "Effects of Reduced Speed Limits in Rapidly Developing Urban Fringe Areas",
Transportation Research Record 1114, 1989, pages 45-53.
70. Robert Rees, "All-Way STOP Signs Installation Criteria", Westernite, Jan-Feb 1999, Vol 53, No. 1,
pg 1-4.
71. Wes Siporski, "Stop Sign Compliance", posting on Traffic Engineering Council List Serve, Jan 15,
I 999.
Appendix B
Additional References for Multi-Way Stop Signs
Not included in Analysis - Reports not available
1. Improvin Traffic Signal Operations, ITE Report IR-081, August 1995.
2. Kunde, " Unwarranted Stop Signs in Cities", ITE Technical Notes, July 1982, page 12.
3. "In search of Effective Speed Control", ITE Technical Notes, December 1980, pages 12-16.
4. "Stop Signs Do Not Control Speed", ITE Technical Notes, July 1978, pages 6-7.
Attachment 3— Page 10 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page I 1 of 11
5. "An Evaluation of Unwarranted Stop Signs", ITE San Francisco Bay Area, February I979.
6. "Cost of Unnecessary Stops", Auto Club of Missouri, Midwest Motorists, 1974.
7. Nitzel, Schatter & Mink, "Residential Traffic Control Policies and Measures", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1988.
8. Weike and Keim, "Residential Traffic Controls", ITE Com�endium of Technicai Papers, Washington
DC, August 1976.
9. Landom and Bulier, "The Effects on Road Noise in Residential Areas", Watford, United Kingdom,
October 1977.
10. Wells and Joyner, "Neighborhood Automobile Restraints", Transportation Research Record 813,
1981.
11. Byrd and Stafford, "Analysis of Delay and User Costs of Unwarranted Four Way Stop Sign
Controlled Intersections", TRR 956, Washington, DC, 1984, pages 30-32.
12. Marconi, "Speed Control Measures in Residential Areas", Traffic Engineering, Vol. 47, No. 3,
March 1977, pages 28-30.
13. Mounce, "Driver's Compliance with Stop Sign Control at Low Volume Intersections", TRR 808,
TRB, Washington, DC, 1981, pages 30-37.
14. Orlob, "Traffic Diversion for Better Neighborhoods", Traffic Engineering, ITE, Vol. 45, No. 7, July
1975, pages 22-25.
Count:
C:\WPERF60�MARTIN�NIULT[ WAY. WPD
Attachment 3— Page 11 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineeringlmultiway.htm 3/23/2011
This page has been left intentionally blank
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 2010
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: New Speed Data for Adelaide NTS Petition
BACKGROUND:
At the November 2, 2009 Committee meeting, the Committee requested staff conduct a new speed study
on 21�` Avenue SW to determine the extent of changes in traffic conditions from previous studies.
The new studies indicate that speeds have crept upward on the northerly segment on 21 Avenue SW
(near SW 304` Street), but remained the same near SW 307`�' Street. Using the adopted Neighborhood
Traffic Safety (NTS) Program criteria, the intersection of 21 Avenue SW at SW 304` Street would score
1.5 points for speed, 0 points for volume, 0.5 point for having a school crossing, and 0 points for collision
history. As such, the request for the all-way stop at 21S` Avenue SW at SW 304` Street still does not meet
NTS criteria. Furthermore, under current policy, the petition cannot be reconsidered unti12011.
One non-injury collision has been reported at this intersection since 2004. Another collision occurred in
2009 west of the intersection where the driver reportedly ran the stop sign on SW 304` Street. It is not
likely that either of these collisions would have been prevented by the installation of an all-way stop.
Attachment 4— Page 1 of 1
This page has been le$ intentionally blank
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 2, 2009
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Adelaide NTS History
BACKGROUND:
At the October 20, 2009 Council meeting, The City Council requested staff review the history of
neighborhood traffic safety issues on 21 S` Avenue SW near Adelaide in response to citizen concerns.
Attachment 1 is the staff report resulting from a request to modify the Council-adopted policy on the
Neighborhood Traffic Safety criteria to restrict the balloting area. This request was the result of the
failure in balloting for the first proposal for traffic calming on 21�` Avenue SW, which consisted of a
combination of speed humps and all-way stops. Council upheld the policy on the balloting area on
July l6, 2009.
However, an outcome from that discussion was the direction to consider collision history and severity,
and a point at which the balloting process could be bypassed due to a compelling need to address
documented safety issues. This proposal is shown in Attachment 2, and was adopted by Council on
October 1, 2002. Contrary to the hopes of some area residents, the scores on 21 Avenue SW were not
adequate at that time to bypass the balloting procedure.
A second petition for traffic calming was received in 2003. The proposal was the installation of a series
of mini-roundabouts, which also failed balloting. This is described in Attachment 3.
After a third petition was received in 2005, Council directed staff to develop a consensus solution, which
resulted in a proposal to install a combination of speed humps and speed tables, as shown in
Attachment 4. This was approved in balloting, however, the Council modified the proposal to construct
only speed tables on September 6, 2005. The speed tables were constructed in late 2005.
Attachment 5 is a staff report from 2008 resulting from a fourth petition to install an all-way stop at SW
344` Street at 21 Avenue SW. Public response was unprecedented in the.Neighborhood Traffic Safety
Program, essentially decrying the continual use of public resources en�the same issue, even though the
problem of speeding had been significantly improved. Two subsequent speed studies confirmed that the
2005 installation of speed tables had reduced the incidence of speeding such that 21s Avenue SW no
longer qualified for the program, and the Program policy was revised by the Council on May 20, 2008 to
limit petitions to be considered on the same topic to once every 3 years.
No collisions have been reported in the corridor since 2004.
Attachments:
1. LUTC memo dated June 24, 2002
2. LUTC memo dated September 16, 2002
3. LUTC memo dated July 18, 2005
4. Agenda bill dated September 6, 2005
5. LUTC memo dated May 5, 2008
Attachment 5— Page 1 of 12
cmr oF G
�.` E� E«�
�� �
DATE: June 24, 2002
TO: Eric Faison, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
FROM: Richard Perez, Traffic Engineer
VIA: David H. Moseley, City Manager
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program Criteria
BACKGROUND
Citizens submitting a petition for traffic calming devices on 21 S ` Avenue SW between SW 304` Street and SW
312`�' Street has questioned the validity of the staff interpretation of the balloting area defined in the Council
adopted policy for the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program.
The NTS policy in question was modified on April 21, 1998 to add areas where the sole source of access would
be impacted by an NTS proposal. Prior to that revision, the balloting azea only included those residing on or
owning properties within 600 feet of a proposed traffic calming device. The change was made as a result of a
neighborhood where a speed hump was proposed on each side of the only �ross-street of a cul-de-sac street that
was longer than 600 feet. Hence, those on the end of the cul-de-sac were not within the balloting area, but had no
choice of alternate routes to avoid the humps. In addition, staffhas received comments that many residents are
adversely impacted by traffie calming devices and should be allowed to vote on any NTS issue.
In the current case, an all-way-stop was proposed at the intersection of Z 1 S ` Avenue S W and S W 304`�' Street and
a speed hump was proposed on 21 S ` Avenue SW between SW 305` Street and SW 307�' Street. Staff included in
the balloting all areas accessed from the north and west legs ofthe intersection of 21 Avenue SW and SW 304`�'
Street. Residents of these areas would have to traverse through the intersection that was being converted from a
two-way stop to an all-way stop; or the speed hump on 21 S ` Avenue SW if drivers avoided the all-way stop by
using SW 305` Street and 23` Avenue SW. The measure failed.
At a follow-up public meeting to discuss the ballot results and any next steps, objections were raised by many
citizens about the balloting area. They reasoned that the residents whose sote access was the west leg of the
intersection already had to stop at stop signs because SW 304"' Street is already stop-controlled. It is their
position that these residents would have encountered no increase in delay due to conversion of the intersection
from two-way stop control to all-way stop control. Therefore, they reasoned that these residents shou}d not have
been inc}uded in the balloting area. Subsequently, staff has determined that the ballot measure would have
passed ifthe policy were interpreted in this manner. Another permutation would have also excluded sole access
voters on the north leg of the intersection, which would have resulted in a tie on the ballot measure.
ALTERNATIVES
In 1998 and 1999, The Twin LakesBrigadoon Traffic Calming Task Force also considered the issue of balloting
area, which resulted in several revisions to the NTS policy. However, no consensus was reached on revising the
balloting area, therefore, no recommendation to change it was made. Concepts that were considered at that time
included the following:
Attachment 5— Page Z of 12
1. Reverting to the previous 600-foot policy without sole access considerations;
2. Altowing everyone within 600 feet of any proposed device to vote on the entire "package" of
improvements. Currently, each proposed device has its own balloting area. Those on one end of a
project do not necessarity vote on devices on the other end of the project.
3. Allowing everyone impacted by the proposal to vote on each device. Defining those impacted can be
chalIenging. A limited focus may result in the existing "sole source of access" policy, whereas a broader
view may include all areas bounded by arterials. For the latter, the balloting area in this case would
include all areas west o€1 �` Avenue S and north of S W Dash Point Road.
4. Maintaining the existing policy, further defining sole source of access to explicitly include those
locations where intersection control on any leg ofthe intersection is revised. For example, in this case, a
proposed all-way stop could significantly impact the safe operation of the intersection (either adversely
or beneficially) and those impacted by a potential change in the safety of the intersection could argue
that they should be allowed to vote on it;
5. Maintaining the existing policy, further defining sole source of access to explicitly exclude those
locations where the intersection control on a given leg of the intersection is not changed.
USE OF SPEED TABLES
Another topic for potential revision to the NTS policy is the use of speed tables as a substitute for speed humps
on principal collectors. City Council has previously approved the use of speed tables in lieu of speed humps on
principal collectors in 25 mph speed zones. Current policy prohibits the use of traffic calming devices on
arterials and principal collectors.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Land Use/Transportation Committee forward the following recommendations to the City
Council for the July 16, 2002 Consent Agenda:
l. Alternative 4 far defining the balloting areas for NTS projects; and
2_ Allowing the use of speed tables on principal collectors with posted speed limits of 25 mph.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: :
Eric Faison, Ghair Dean McColgan, Member Michael Park, lVlember
RAP:dI
cc: Project File
Day File
k:\Iutc�2002W7 S policy revisions.doc
Attachment 5— Page 3 of 12
� CITY OF
�.. Federal Way
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
September 16, 2002
Eric Faison, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Richard A. Perez, City Traffic Engineer
David H. Moseley, City Manager
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Policy Revisions
BACKGROUND
At its July 1, 2002, meeting, the Land Use and Transportation Committee directed staff to develop
revisions to the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program policy that would consider collision severity
in qualifying a given street for the NTS program, and set a threshold upon which qualifying projects
could bypass the balloting process.
Currently, the policy considers three criteria for qualification of a street for traffic calming
improvements: speed, volume, and collision history. Each of these is scored on a scale of 0 to 3
points in 0.5 point increments, for a possible point total of 9.0 points, where 3.0 points are needed to
qualify for the program. These criteria are shown in Table 1 below:
Points Accidents/Year Average Daily Traffic 85th Percentile Speed
(5-year history) (two-way total) (mph in either direction)
0.5 03-0.5 500-I100 26-29
1.0 0.5-0.7 ll01-1700 29.1-32
1.5 0.7-0.9 1�O1-2300 32.1-35
2.0 0.9-I.1 2301-2900 35.1-38
2.5 1.1-1.3 2901-3500 38. I-41
3.0 More than 13 More than 3500 More than 4l
If a project meets these and other applicable technical criteria as explained in the attached policy,
neighborhood meetings are held to develop a consensus solution. Ballots are sent to all property
owners and residents within 600 feet of any proposed device or if their sole source of access would
Attachment 5— Page 4 of 12
be impacted by the installation of any traffic calming device. Each device is balloted separately,
and a simple majority of returned ballots is necessary to carry the project forward to the City
Council for final approval.
At issue was the case of 21 Avenue SW between SW 304�' Street and SW 312�' Street, which
qualified for the program, but where balloting failed to achieve a 50% approval rate. If existing
traffic conditions were determined to be severe, the revised criteria, if appiied, may allow the
proposal to move forward for construction.
ANALYSIS
Staff first considered the issue of collision severity measures. The measures considered include:
• Number of injury or fatality collisions per year;
• Number of injury or fatality collisions per vehicle-mile;
• Societal cost of collisions per year;
• Societal cost per vehicle-mile
In order to be consistent with current collision measure, it is proposed that the simple measure of
number of collisions involving injuries be measured. It is also proposed that fatalities be twice the
weight of injury collisions.
When adding these criteria, consistency with past results should also be considered. By adding
points for eollision severity, the existing threshold of 3.0 points may no longer be appropriate for
the program.
Staff reviewed all NTS applications since the beginning of the program where records were
complete enough to provide valid comparison, which numbered 40. The results suggest that
although most projects had no injury coIlisions within the previous 5 years, some had several, and
four would've qualified for the program if collision severity were included. However, if the
existing 3.0 point threshold were raised, three projects would not have qualified for the program.
After reviewing the individual projects in guestion, staff recommends leaving the project threshold
criteria for qualification at 3.0 points.
The threshold at which the balloting process may be bypassed can be determined by inspection of
the graph below, which displays in ascending order the ranked percentile of occurrences in the
40-project sample.
For example, a 6.0 point score eorrelates to the 90` percentile, which means that 10% of the values
are higher than 6.0. The threshold can be determined by any number of arbitrary means, including
selecting an arbitrary percentage (5%, l0%, or 20%), deviations from the mean (the mean is 3.5,
and the standard deviation is 2.16), multiple of the lower threshold value (such as double 3.0), or
looking for a gap in values (such as between 7 and 8.5). Another approach would be to consider the
parameters (speed, volume, collisions, and coliision severity) and determine which values would be
intolerable and make those va}ues arbitrary limits. Since higher values in any of the parameters are
undesirable, this is an emotional decision. Nonetheless, staff offers the value of 6.Q as a reasonable
value: It corresponds to the highest 10% of the sample, it is one standard deviation above the mean
value, it is double the existing threshold for yualifying for the program, and it graphically represents
something of a"break poinY' in the graph.
Attachment 5— Page 5 of 12
100
90
80
d
70
� 60
� 50
d
�
� 40
a
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Points
8 9 10 11 12
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program policy be revised to incorporate
the following changes:
1. Collision severity be considered, with each injury collision in the previous 5 years counting
as 1 point, and each fatal collision in the previous 5 years as 2 points.
2. If a project reaches 6 or more points, the balloting process may be bypassed. In this case,
staff wouid develop a proposal with citizen input for the City Council's consideration and
approval.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE �2EPORT:
Eric Fai§on, Chair �Ii�hael Pa"rk, Member Dean McColgan, Member
RP:dI
Attachment: Proposed NTS Policy Amendment
k:\lutc\2002�nts poiicy rev'02.doc
Attachment 5— Page 6 of 12
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 18, 2005
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: David H. Moseley, City Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Status of Traffic Calming Efforts on 21 Avenue SW
POLICY QUESTION•
For information only.
BACKGROUND
At the June 21, 2005, meeting of the City Council, staffwas requested to provide an update on the status of the
City's efforts to address speeding concerns on 21 st Avenue SW north of SW Dash Point Road in response to
concerns expressed by residents.
The first petition for traffic calming devices on 21 Avenue SW was received in late 2001. The street easily met
the technical criteria for qualifying for the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program. A neighborhood
meeting was held in early 2002 to develop a consensus for addressing the speeding problem. The proposal
devetoped by those assembled consisted of the installation of all-way stop control on 21 Avenue SW at both SW
304` Street and SW 307` Street, and two speed humps, one on 21 Avenue SW between SW 305` Street and SW
306` Place, and one on ZIS` Way SW between 19` Place SW and 2ls` Avenue SW_ Ballot results showed only the
speed hump on 21 Way SW passing. Based on past experience on 4``' Avenue S near S 304` Street, staff
determined that one speed hump would not be effective in deterring speeding, so no proposat was forwarded to
the Committee.
The ballot results were contested due to an issue with the area being balloted. Due to the Council-adopted policy
of including areas wherein the sole source of access would be affected by a traffic calming proposal, a large area
was allowed to vote that would have had to either traverse a speed hump or an all-way stop intersection. The
concern was that these people were the part of the problem with speeding and therefore not motivated to vote for a
traffic calming solution, so relief was sought from allowing these votes to sway the results. This issue was
brought to the Committee and Council in July 2002, which reaffirmed the balloting area policy.
A second petition was received in 2003. Again, 21 Avenue SW easily met the technical criteria for qualifying
for the NTS Program. A neighborhood meeting was held in March 20Q4, wherein a majority of those assembled
developed a proposal to install mini-roundabouts at the intersections of SW 305` Street and SW 307` Street,
although a significant minority preferred the previous proposal of all-way stops and speed humps. Note that by
not proposing any changes at SW 304`�' Street, the balloting area previously contested was reduced significantly.
Nonetheless, this ballot measure also failed.
A third petition has now been received. Staff has determined that 21 Avenue SW continues to meet the technical
criteria for qualifying for the NTS program. A neighborhood meeting has been tentatively scheduled for July 27`
Staff Recommendation:
For information only.
Attachment 5— Page 7 of 12
K:ILOTC'Z�OS\07-I8-0� STATUS OF 21 AVE SW' �RA1 FlC C,aLMING.DOC
Attachment 5— Page 8 of 12
MEETING DATE: September 6th, 2005
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
ITEM#
SUBJECT: Traffic Calming Efforts on 21 Avenue SW
CATEGORY:
� CONSENT ❑ ORDINANCE
❑ RESOLUTION ❑ PUBLIC HEARING
❑ CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS ❑ OTHER
BUDGET IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: $
Expenditure Amt.: $
Contingency Req'd: $
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint slides presented to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated August lst, 2005.
SUMMARYBACKGROUND: At the June 21, 2005, meeting of the City Council, staff was requested to provide an
update on the status of the City's efforts to address speeding concerns on 21 st Avenue SW north of SW Dash Point Road
in response to concerns expressed by residents.
The first petition for traffic calming devices on 21 Avenue SW was received in late ZOOI . The street easily met the
technical criteria for yualifying for the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program. results showed only the speed hump
on 21 S` Way SW passing. Based on past experience on 4` Avenue S near S 304` Street, staff determined that one speed
hump would not be effective in deterring speeding, so no proposal was forwarded to the Committee.
The ballot results were contested due to an issue with the area being balloted. This issue was brought to the Commiriee
and Council in July 2002, which reaffirmed the balloting area policy.
A second petition was received in 2003. Again, 21S` Ave SW met the technical criteria but the ballot measure also failed.
A third petition has now been received. Staff has determined that 21 Avenue SW continues to meet the technical criteria
for qualifying for the NTS program. A neighborhood meeting took place July 26` The consensus solution was to install
raised crosswalks at SW 304` Street and SW 307` Street, and three mid-block speed tables. lt was noted that this
proposal would exceed the $10,000 per neighborhood per year limit in the Council's adopted policy, and with other
pending NTS requests, could exceed the NTS program budget, but that the increase in budget would be unlikely to cause
the Public Works Department operating budget to be exceeded.
Staff recommended that the consensus solution be balloted within the neighborhood.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its August Ist, 2005 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee forwarded the following recommendations:
1. Due to more expediently address the ongoing safety issues and overcome the past lack of neighborhood
consensus, bypass the balloting process in the current policy;
2. In order to more aggressively combat speeding, revise the proposal to replace the mid-block speed tables with
speed humps; and
3. Authorize staff to exceed the $10,000 per neighborhood per year limit in the current policy.
_ _ _ __ ___ . .. _ __ __ _ __ .__ _ _
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to authorize staff to imptement the Land Use and Transportation Committee
recommendation to install two raised crosswalks and three speed humps on 21S` Avenue SW."
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Attachment 5— Page 9 of l2
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
■
�■
■
■
APPROVED
DENIED
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 reading
Enactment reading.
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - OS/10/2001
Attachment 5— Page 10 of 12
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 5, 2008
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM CRITERIA REVISIONS
BACKGROUND:
The Committee requested that staff address two issues: (1) the status of the current proposal for an all-
way stop at the intersection of 2l Avenue SW and SW 304�' Street; and (2) review the Neighborhood
Traffic Safety Program policy with respect to the frequency with which petitions may be re-submitted.
Status of Current Petition
A petition was received requesting an all-way stop at the intersection of 21 Avenue SW and SW 304`
Street. All-way stops are evaluated using two sets of criteria: the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic
Controt Devices (MUTCD), as adopted by Washington State and the City; and the Neighborhood Traffic
Safety Program (NTSP) criteria. The evaluation was delayed by continued interference with data
collection (tube counters), but we were able to complete a week's worth of data on all four legs of the
intersection to properly evaluate t}ie proposal.
MUTCD criteria, which are based on traffic volumes, history of collisions that may be preventable by all-
way stop control, and adequate sight distance, are clearly not met for all-way stop installation.
NTSP criteria are a cumutative score based on traffic volumes, speed, collision history, and presence of
schools, parks, or designated school safe walking routes. Since 2l�` Avenue SW is a minor collector,
Table 2 is used for scoring. The 85`� percentile speed of traffic approaching the intersection is 26.5 mph,
scoring 0.5 point. The average daily traffic is 1035, scoring 0.5 point. The south leg of the intersection
has a crosswalk for a designated school safe walking route, scoring 0.5 point. One injury collision was
reported in 2004 at the intersection, scoring 1.0 point. (It should be noted that the collision occurred prior
to the installation of speed tables and raised crosswalks on 2l Avenue SW, thus the one collision may
not be representative of current safety conditions.) The total score is 2.5 points. A minimum score of 3.0
points is reyuired to yualify for the program; thus the proposal does not qualify for the NTS program.
Frequency of Petitions
The current policy allows for resubmittal of petitions 12 months after the implementation of any previous
traffic calming implementations in order to consider subsequent removal of same, in case the traffic
calming devices were not operating as intended. The policy does not explicitly address a time period
between unsuccessful attempts at obtaining a particular device. Staff has used the same 12-month time
period to consider new petitions for previous unsuccessful proposals.
K:V.IJTC�2008\OS-OS-08 NTS Revisions.doc Attachment 5— Page 11 of 12
May 5, 2008
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program Revisions
Page 2
In the instant case, a citizen had submitted a petition for an all-way stop at a particular intersection in
2001 as part of a larger traffic calming proposal. The proposal was voted down by the neighborhood. A
second petition was received in 2003 for which the consensus solution was installation of a mini-
roundabout at the subject intersection, but this was also voted down by the neighborhood. A third petition
was received in 2005, for which the consensus solution was the installation of speed tables and raised
crosswalks, which was eventually approved and constructed. Subsequent studies show that this has
reduced speeding, but as expected and indicated to the , public; speeding has not been eliminated
completely. In 2008, another petition was received requesting an all-way stop. This has triggered a
volume of e-mails, phone calls, and public comment unprecedented in the NTS Program, requesting that
the City not use any more resources to continue analyzing the intersection, hoiding neighborhood
meetings, and attempting to reach consensus on what continues to be a divisive issue in the subject
neighborhood.
To address this issue, staff proposes policy language that increases the waiting period for subsequent
submittals for new installations from one to three years. Exceptions would include instances in which
implementation of a larger proposal is phased due to budgetary constraints, and if traffic conditions have
changed significantly due to roadway improvements or land use changes.
cc: Project File
Day File
Attachment 5— Page 12 of 12
Resident Comments
I live in View Ciiff and drive 21 st many times per day. 1 also watk down to
the beach. t have seen significant stower speed since the bumps were put
in. I feel Nancy and the city has completed their mission. I am tired of this
woman spending our tax dollars because she has�nothing to do but expel
negative energy. Just think what she cou{d accomplish if the negative
energy was put into positive energy. Thank you for your time.
2. I hope that the wasteful pursuit of more stop signs at 21 st and 304th is put
to rest tonite. From the discussions my neighbors have been having it
sounds like the speed tables have alleviated this problem. Please do not
waste more time and money on this issue.
3. There have been families that have lost children to being hit by cars and
can't get the justification for additional stop signs, yet Federal Way is
pursuing the placement of additional signs on 21 st Ave, where there is no
more problem after the installation of the speed bumps, at the charge of
Ms. Combs. Let's just issue her a ticket book and radar gun!
4. Dear Council Member: We are residents of the "View Cliff' neighborhood
and would like to share our opposition to the "Four Way Stop Sign
situation" at 21 st Ave SW & SW 304th. Thank you for the opportunity to
have our opinion known on fhis matter. Sincerely,
5. I am unabfe to attend the council meeting this evening due to a business
committment, but wanted to email in regards to an item on tonights
agenda. Request for 4 way stop signs installed on 21 st Ave SW by Nancy
Combs. My family moved into the neighborhood 2 years ago from
Vaneouver WA. We enjoy our home, neighborhood, and the community. t
thought it was unusually to have speed tables instalted on 21 st Ave when
we originatly bought the house, but thought it was due to Adelaide
Elementary School children_ In my 2 years speeding or vehicles traveling
at an excessive rate of speed has not been an issue along this stretch of
road at any time of day. It would be a waste of Federaf Way funds to
remove the current speed tables (that are working) and install stop signs.
There are many other worthwhile projects to benefit our community that
the funds shoutd be earmarked for. We hope that you make the correct
decision to maintain the current speed restrietions. Thank you.
6. Subject: Four Way Stop at 21 st Ave SW & SW 304th street as requested
by Nancy Combs: A Four Way stop at this corner is NOT required or
desired. We have (ived within one mile of this corner for 43 years 8� travei
through that intersection each time we drive out of our subdivision. This is
a solution in search of a problem! PLEASE do not spend city funds making
Attachment 6— Page 1 of 3
a four way top at this intersection. There is very fittle traffic through this
corner. This is a realfy dumb idea with no merit. Please do not do this!
Sincerely,
7. I am a homeowner in the View Cliff neighborhood. I have lived in the
Adelaide area for 15+ years and use 304th street daily. There are no
speed traffic issues as Mrs. Combs continues to raise. I know her sons
and their stories of her indicate that she enjoys stiring up #rouble. Please,
we do not need a 4 way stop, the speed bumps have done more than
enough. Thank you for your time.
8. This e-mail regards the proposed 4-way stop at 21st Ave SW and 304th.
We've lived in the View Cliff neighborhood on 25th Ave. SW. for 12 years.
During that time, we've noticed a continuing deterioration in the
relationship between Ms. Nancy Combs and just about everybody that
lives within a mile of her. Ms. Combs seems to think that no one should be
allowed to drive on the the street in front of her house. If you happen to
drive by when she is outside, you get a dirty look. At present there is no
speeding problem on 21 st SW, the huge speed bumps have seen to that.
A four-way-stop would do nothing to satisfy Ms. Combs who won't be
satisfied until there is no travel allowed on 21 st. Where does it stop??
We've wasted thousands of dol(ars on speed bumps, now Ms. Combs is
proposing that we spend thousands more on a four-way-stop. What's
next??? She won't be satisfied until there is no traffic at all which will never
happen. This is a growing area which will continue to grow into the future.
The result will be more traffic, not less regardless of speed bumps and
stop signs. The best advise I can give Ms. Combs is not to live on a busy
street if you don't like tra�c. If you don't like airplane noise, don't live
under the flight path from SeaTac, if you don't want your house full of
water, don't live in a flood-plane. There are many choices we need to
make in order to make our lives what we think they should be. The reality
is that things change as an area grows, perhaps Ms. Combs has lived
here too long and should seek-out a nice dead-end street for everybody's
peace of mind.
9. This is the first time t have ever commented to a goverment agency. But
the situation reguarding a 4 way stop at 304th & 21 ave. SW. is getting out
of control. This study is a complete waste of city funds. The council needs
to stop wasting their fime pandering to the whims of one individual.
10. Dear Councilmembers, Unfortunately we will be unable to attend the
council meeting this evening but wanted to stress our frustration at the
continuing frivolus actions by one disgruntled citizen as it concerns stop
signs for the 304th street/21 st Ave. SW intersection. There is absolutely
no merit to her claims for these stop signs of which we already have 2 for
north and south 304th street and a speed table on 21st right at the 304th
Attachment 6— Page 2 of 3
corner the city recentiy installed. The traffic is minimal fromai! the
residential areas around this intersection and the speed is controlled by
the speed tables along 21 st SW. To make this a 4-way stop, the city will
now have to pay for removal of the speed table and erecting 2 more stop
signs for nothing more than the whims of one person who envisions
something that isn't there! Why does the city put up with the constant
harrassment and harangue of this one individual with just about every
department within the city. Check with the City Manager's office and the
police dept. as wefl as the traffic folks. This individual has no doubt cost
the city an enormous amount of its valuable time and dollars. This
proposal for a 4-way stop should be denied for want of any merit!
11. Re: Nancy Combs request for 4-way stop signs to be installed on 21 st Ave
SW: Ms. Combs request is devoid of inerit. The installation of the speed
tables along 21st have mitigated the speeding issue. There is insufficient
traffic to justify this wasteful expenditure of city funds. Her request is a
frivolous misuse of Council time and resources.
K:\TRAFFIC�NTS�Raid\NTS-ADELAIDE-21 AVE SW�NTS-OS-Adelaide-21swDash�neighborhood frustration- 4 way stop.doc
Attachment 6— Page 3 of 3
This page has been left intentionally blank
i f - � __-
. _ �
�. , . _ �..
�. _ . __.._
Adelaide
L�'lementary
School
March 11, 2011
City of Federal Way
33325 8` Avenue South
Federa! Way, WA 98003
To Whom It May Concern:
Please consider this letter of support for a community request to install stop signs in the Adelaide
Elementary neighborhood. A stop sign at the north/south corner of SW 304`" Street and 22�` Avenue SW
would greatly enhance the safety of our students as they daily arrive and depart from school. Currently
a stop sign exists at the east/west intersection, but not the north/south.
We are hopeful than an additional stop sign will help with cars that continually speed through the
intersection, endangering our students as they walk to and frer�t schoo! each day.
Please feel free to contact me if you are in need of additiona! information.
Sincerely,
�
Ann Gray �
Principal
Attachment 7— Page 1 of 2
f�
� � � - . __�fi
Attachment 7— Page 2 of 2
`
QTY OF �
Federal Way
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program
Existing residential neighborhoods in the City of Federal Way may be considered for the NTS
program in order to control Vaffic speeds, reduce cut-through traffic and improve documented
pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. Neighborhoods are defined by elementary school attendance
areas. The NTS program should not be confused with other City processes required of new
subdivisions or commercial developments. The NTS program consists of three phases (the three E's)
in the following order: 1) Education, 2) Enforcement, and then 3) Engineering:
I) Education:
The education phase is intended to increase neighborhood awareness of local speeding issues.
In many cases, a handful of speeders are known to the neighborhood and could use a
reminder to change their driving behavior. A neighborhood watch program may be launched
that could use the following tools:
Include a general article in your homeowner association's (HOA) and/or local school
newsletters to remind residents about the importance of obeying speed limits, and to warn
residents to be on the watch for speeding traffic. In many cases, the driver is
unintentionally speeding and a friendly reminder would be effective.
• Contact the Police Department at (253) 835-6775 to reyuest placement of a speed trailer
(speed reader board) in your neighborhood. Depending on the location and driver
population, this device may change driver behavior for an indefinite time period.
Volunteers willing to help the Police Department are always appreciated; please call
(253) 835-6730 if interested in volunteering in this program.
Form a speed watch group to document incidents of speeding. Be sure to include any
vehicle information: colors, makes, models, license numbers, and the dates and times
they pass through a specific location. This information, when compiled for several
weeks, should then be submitted to a selected speed watch program manager. Several
reports of speeding for the same vehicle should then be reported to the Potice Department
for enforcement so that officers may more effectively target locations at specific times for
emphases patrol.
II) Enforcement:
The second phase of the NTS program is special enforcement_ It may take some drivers a
more drastic method (speeding tickets} to change their driving behavior. This usually works
for local residential speeds with minimum cut-through traffic. ln some cases, the Engineering
phase is needed to address the speeding issue.
III) Engineering:
Citizens that have any questions regarding the NTS program mav call the Public Works
Department at (253) 835-2700. The NTS program allows the installation of traffic calming
devices such as speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, traffic circles, chicanes,
signing, pavement marking, or other approved devices. These devices shall only be installed
when the folIowing general conditions and criteria are met:
Attachment 8 Page 1 of 4
A- General Conditions:
Less restrictive means of controlling speed (Education and Enforcement) have been
attempted without success.
2. The proposed devices may be installed on residential streets functionally classified as
local or minor collector. Some devices that do not severely delay emergency vehicles,
such as speed tables or roundabouts, may be permitted on principal collectors as long as
the posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph.
3. No devices shall be installed within 600 feet Of a traffic signal or 250 feet of a stop sign.
As measured along the major roadway movement.
4. For vertical deflection devices, no adverse street characteristics exist, such as steep
grades in excess of 8%. In all cases, sight distance standards must be met.
5. Storm drainage problems created by the installation of the proposed devices can be
adequately addressed.
6. Each neighborhood may apply for traffic calming devices costing a maximum of $15,000
per year. If the proposed devices cost more than this amount, the neighborhood may
form a Local Improvement District (LID) to fund the excess amount. Otherwise, the City
may phase and fund the excess amount in a future year (minimum of l2 months from
installation) and based on a first-come, first-serve basis.
7: The City will not fund the installation of traffic calming devices in cul-de-sacs that are
less than 600 feet long.
B- Installation Process and Criteria
l) To be considered for the installation of traffic calming devices, a City prepared or
approved petition must be submitted to the City. The petition must be signed by owners
or residents representing at least ten parcels within the affected area specifying the
problem's nature and exact project location and limits. Petitions for proposals that were
not successfully implemented due to failure to meet the NTS criteria or failure to pass a
ballot proposal in previous attempts will only be considered in the following instances:
a. The proposal was not implemented due to budgetary constraints and the criteria
continue to be met; or
b. As determined by the Public Works Director, traffic conditions have changed due
to roadway improvements or land use changes; or
c. At least 36 months has passed since the failure of a previous attempt.
2) A traffic study wilt then be conducted to see if the program technical criteria (severity
score) is met. Cunently, the City considers four criteria to qualify a street for traffic
calming devices:
a) Majority Speed: The 85` percentile speed averaged for both directions.
b) Volume: The Average Daily Traffic total of both directions.
c) Location: Half a point is given for streets fronting parks, schools, or designated
school crossings.
d) Collisions: A five-year reported collision history (frequency and severity) is
investigated for collisions that may be correctable by traffic calming devices.
Depending on roadway functional classification, each criterion is scored on a scale of 0.0
to 3.0 points as shown in Tables I through 3 below. The total severity score is added for
K:\TRAFFICtiNTS\NTS Program rev 04-OS-I I.doc 2�4
Attachment 8— Page 2 of 4
each category for a maximum 15.5 points. A three point minimum severity score is
needed to continue with the program regardless of how the points were collected:
Table 1
Local Residential Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Co{lision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'u Fatal
0.0 0-25 0-500 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 501 - 600 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 601 - 700 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 701 - 800 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 801 - 900 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 901 - 1,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 1,001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 2
Minor Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'u Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0- 1,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 1,001 —1,800 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 1,801 — 2,600 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 2,601 — 3,400 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 3,401 — 4,200 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 4,201 — 5,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 5,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 3
Principal Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Coilision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'u Fatai
0.0 0- 25 0- 5,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 5,001 - 7,000 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 7,001 - 9,000 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 9,OQ1 - 11,000 - 4 - -
2_0 32 - 33 11,001 - 13,000 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 13,001 - 15,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 15,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
3) If a project does not meet the 3-point minimum severity score, the contact petitioner is
informed about the study results and is asked to inform those who signed the petition of
the results. ln such a case, additional education and enforcement would be the proposed
solution.
K:\TRAFFICWTS\NTS Program rev 04-OS-I 1_doc 3/4
Attachment 8- Page 3 of 4
4) If the project meets the above criteria, the City will hold a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various traffic calming devices and to
develop a consensus solution. In addition to residents, staff from the School District,
Police, and Fire Departments may also be invited. Public meetings are usually advertised
by posting signs on the subject roads.
5) Ballots are sent to aIl properties abutting the streets and are within 600 feet (measured
along street centerlines) of the proposed project location. Ballots are also sent to
properties where the proposed devices would be located along their sole access route as
determined by the Public Works Director. Only one ballot will be issued per housing unit
address. A simple majority (more than 50 %) of returned ballots is necessary to carry the
project forward to City Council for final approval. The ballots are only utilized to
measure neighborhood project support and are advisory to Council who may modify the
proposaL
6) If a ballot area extends beyond the citv limits, ballot results for ballots returned from
properties within the Citv and from outside the Citv will be tabulated separatelv and
jointiv for evaluation bv the Citv Council.
7) The ballot results may be delivered to the neighborhood utilizing signs on the street or by
conducting a second neighborhood meeting.
8) If a project's severity score is at least 6 points, staff may develop a proposal with citizen
input and the balloting process may be bypassed.
9) If the ballot measure passes or if the total severity score is at least 6 points, the proposal
is presented to the City Council sub-committee, and if passed, is then presented to the full
Council for final approval.
10) If the ballot measure fails, a three-year waiting period is required to restart the process.
l l) If approved by Council, the traffic calming devices would be installed as soon as budget,
weather, and the contractor's schedule permits.
C- Removal Process and Criteria
Traffic calming devices may be removed when all of the following criteria are met:
l) A City prepared or approved petition signed by owners or residents representing 10 or
more lots within the affected area must be submitted to the City. The affected area
includes properties abutting streets within 600 feet of the existing device location,
measured along street centerlines, and properties which the existing devices are located
along their sole access route as determined by the Public Works Director, and
2) Property owners and residents within the affected area shall be sent a City prepared or
approved ballot by first class mail. More than 50 % of the returned baIlots must vote
affirmatively, concurring with the removal of devices. This ballot is advisory to City
Council, who may modify the proposal, and
3) An adeguate review period (minimum of 12 months from installation) and subsequent
engineering analysis has been performed to determine the traffic characteristics along the
route and the impacts to the remaining street system.
K_\TRAFFIC�NTS\NTS Program rev 04-OS-ll.doc Attachment 8— Page 4 of 4 4/4