HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 03-27-2001 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
5:30 p.m.
Public Safety Training Room
Call to Order.
Part 2a. Speed Hump Policy.
Part 2b.
3. Consider Future Study Session Topics.
4. Adjourn.
0
DATE: March 23, 2001
TO: / Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager, through
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E., City Engineer
FROM: Carla J. Jones, P.E., Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: INFORMATION ON SPEED HUMPS
In the past several years, the City has received many requests from citizens to control speeding
and high through -traffic volumes on residential streets. To address these concerns, the City
adopted a policy for the installation of speed humps on residential roadways on July 6, 1999.
Since this policy was adopted, the number of requests for speed hump installations has increased.
To examine speed hump issues and the existing policy, the City Council recently placed a
moratorium on the approval of speed hump installations in the City. In response to this
moratorium, the engineering staff has collected a significant amount of information provided
from other cities to quantify the pro's and con's of speed humps. This memo summarizes these
findings including the effects of speed hump installations on vehicle speeds, through -traffic
volumes, emergency vehicle response time and maintenance vehicles. Also included are possible
revisions to the existing policy and the method other cities use to deal with similar requests and
the cost of speed hump installations.
Effectiveness of Speed Humps
The primary function of speed humps is to reduce vehicle speeds, and many studies have shown
that they are effective in doing this. Speed humps have also been found to reduce the amount of
through -traffic volumes on residential roadways. Information from several cities with a
significant amount of experience with speed humps was collected showing results from before
and after data studies. The following tables show the before and after test results for traffic
speeds and volumes on residential streets in the cities of Austin, TX; Bellevue, WA; Charlotte,
NC; and Portland, OR.
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 2
Based on these studies, the 85" percentile speeds were generally reduced by 5 - 10 mph in other
cities in the United States. The "before" speeds ranged between 33 mph and 38 mph. The
after" speeds ranged between 25 mph and 32 mph. Additionally, the average reduction in
through traffic volumes ranged between 15 and 30 percent.
TABLE 1 - DATA FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS
STREET 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED (MPH) 24 HOUR VOLUME
Volume
After
Before After Percent Chane Before After Percent Change
Highland Drive SE 36 25 31
166th Avenue SE 37 24
Richcreek 36.5 29.5 19 1005 1085 8
Pasadena 36 30.5 15 1045 1070 2
Aspen Creek 37.5 26 31 1122 775 31
Aspen Creek 37.5 28.5 24 1122 875 22
Woodland 40 28 30 7611 7018 8
Woodland 40 28 30 7611 7026 7.5
Woodland 40 24.5 39 7611 5092 33
Roundup 39 30.5 22 1468 937 36
Roundup 39 28 28 1468 604 59
Average 38 28 26% 3340 2720 19.5%
TABLE 2 - DATA FROM BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
STREET 85th Percentile Speed
Before (mph)
85th Percentile Speed
After (mph)
Percent
Change
Volume
Before
Volume
After
Percent
Change
Somerset Drive SE 39 27 31
Highland Drive SE 36 25 31
166th Avenue SE 37 24 35
162nd Avenue SE 37 27 27
SE 63rd Street 36 27 25
Yarrow Bay Neighborhood 39 25 36
Average 37.3 25.8 31%-
TABLE 3 - DATA FROM CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
STREET 85th Percentile
Speed Before (mph)
85th Percentile
Speed After (mph)
Percent
Change
Volume
Before
Volume
After
Percent
Change
Barclay Downs Dr. 40.3 37.5 7 13,000 10,300 21
Carolyn Drive 39.8 31.3 21 600 500 17
Calecrest Drive 38.2 33.9 11 3,000 2,500 17
Lancer Drive 30.7 29.7 3 1,600 1,400 13
Laurel Avenue 32.8 27.6 16 5,000 4,700 6
Marlbrook Drive 37.2 31.7 15 3,800 4,000 5
Park Crossing Dr. 40.9 37.4 9 2,700 2,000 26
Tipperary Place 33.8 34.2 1 5,200 4,400 15
Westfield Road 32.3 26.8 17 1,000 900 10
Average 36.2 32.2 11% 3,989 3,411 14%
N:\pw\Engineering\GENERAL\SpeedHumps\032701 CityCouncil. DOC
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 3
TABLE 4 - DATA FROM PORTLAND, OREGON
STREET Ave.
Speed
Before
Ave.
Speed
After
Percent
Change
85th
Percentile
Speed
Before
85th
Percentile
Speed
After
Percent
Change
Ave.
Volume
Before
Ave.
Volume
After
Percent
Change
N. Bryant 27 22.5 20 31.7 24 24 940 775 18
NE Dekum 30 24 20 35.5 27 24 1,500 880 41
N Missouri 31.5 25.5 19 35.5 25.5 28 810 770 5
Montana Ave 25.5 24 6 30 23 23 1,050 950 10
NE4 Ave 28.5 22.5 21 34.6 25.4 27 1,110 1,300 17
NE 57h Ave 28.5 24 16 30 24.4 19 1 1,300 900 31
NE 110 Ave 28.5 22.5 21 31.9 24.2 24 640 480 25
NE I I Ph Ave 30 22.5 25 36 27.2 24 680 680 0
NEEll 30 21 30 35 26 26 1,200 1,200 0
NE Ainsworth 30 22.5 25 35.7 26.1 27 580 400 31
NE Fargo 28.5 22.5 21 34 25 26 830 720 13-
NE Fargo 28.5 21 26 33 26 21 570 460 19
NE Hassalo 27 21 22 30 23.8 21 1,150 1,100 4
SE 40 Ave 24 21 13 30 22 27 840 565 33
SE Ave 27 22.5 17 29.8 25 16 1,090 1,250 15
SE 58 Ave 25.5 24 6 32 24.9 22 850 850 0
SE 60 Ave 27 22.5 17 30.5 1 25.5 16 1,115 830 26
SE 6r Ave 25.5 22.5 12 30.5 24 21 1,240 1,480 19
SE 90 Ave 27 24 11 33.3 24.4 27 500 530 6
SE 101 Ave 27 19 30 30 23 23 660 550 17-
SE 108 Ave
1
28.5 22.5 21 33.3 25.6 23 730 640 12
SE 1-1Ave 28.5 22.5 21 31.9 24 25 600 470 22
SE 113 Ave 30 24 20 34.8 24.5 30 1,150 1,000 13
SE Ankeny 24 22.5 6 30.2 25.4 16 1,430 1,100 23
SE Harney 28.5 21 26 35.7 25.6 28 670 520 22
SE Morrison 28.5 22.5 21 34.6 22.1 36 990 880 11
Kruse Ridge Dr. 30 22.5 25 32.8 25.6 22 745 690 7
SW Troy St 31.5 22.5 29 34.5 25.4 26 1,450 1,150 21
Average 28.1 22.4 20% 32.7 24.8 24% 944 826 13%
Speed Hump Effects on Emergency and Maintenance Vehicles and Transit Buses
Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) Guidelines for the Design and
Application of Speed Humps, large trucks, buses, and emergency vehicles can safely pass over
speed humps, but they must travel at relatively low speeds or significant jolting to the vehicle can
occur causing discomfort or injury to the occupants and jostling of cargo. In addition to the
physical affect that speed humps have on these vehicles, delays to emergency response vehicles
should also be considered to determine the appropriate placement of speed humps. The ITE
guidelines do not recommend that speed humps be placed on streets used as a primary or routine
emergency route.
N:\pw\Engineering\GENERAL.\SpeedHumps\032701 C ityCouncil. DOC
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 4
Statistics have shown that the response time for emergency vehicles may increase from 2-10
seconds per hump, with 2 seconds representing an unoccupied ambulance, 3-5 seconds for a fire
engine or truck, and approximately 10 seconds for an ambulance transporting a patient. Studies
from Montgomery County, MA; Portland, OR; and Austin, TX, have shown that speed humps
cause considerable delays for responding fire -rescue apparatus, which may affect life-threatening
incidents such as cardiac arrest, uncontrolled bleeding, or persons trapped in burning buildings or
vehicles. In some cities the emergency vehicles avoid all streets that have speed humps, unless
there is an emergency on that street. In many cases, the city has agreed to avoid placing speed
humps on emergency response routes. In addition, in Sacramento California, two firefighters, in
separate incidents, were injured with vertebral compression from a fire truck traveling over the
humps and jolting them.
In the City of Plymouth as well as other cities, the emergency services departments have
expressed concerns regarding the effect of speed hump installations on their response time. The
Fire Task Force for the City of Plymouth has made a recommendation against the installation of
additional speed humps. In the Fire Service Task Force Final Report (attached pages 1-11) and
various other studies provided by the Fire Department (attached pages 12-55), the importance of
keeping the travel and response time to a minimum is considered critical. Travel time can be
influenced by many factors including the network of collector and minor arterial streets, traffic
control devices, and physical changes to the roadway, including speed humps. A
recommendation from this study suggests that the possible impacts of speed humps on
emergency response should be considered when the City Council reviews further requests for
speed humps.
In addition to emergency response time, speed humps can have a negative impact on the
transporting of patients to the hospital. Emergency service department vehicles typically respond
to two categories of calls, medicine and trauma. Medicine calls involve patients who are treated
at the scene and driven away, i.e. heart problems, shock, and illness. Speed humps would not
effect EMS for these calls. Trauma calls normally involve the patient being loaded into the EMS
vehicle and technicians (EMT's) work en route to the hospital. Examples are injuries, which may
or may not be life threatening. The effect of humps slightly slow the response and transport time
and there is a "slight annoyance" in working on a patient. IV's and other tubes cannot be
inserted while going over humps. Another concern is patient comfort during the transport. For
these reasons, the City may want to consider keeping major access routes clear of humps.
Horizontal traffic calming devices, such as traffic circles may be preferable over vertical
treatments such as humps on any major access route where traffic calming is deemed necessary.
The impacts of speed humps on maintenance vehicles is considered a nuisance. Any type of
physical traffic calming device is going to make snowplowing more difficult, and speed humps
are no exception. The City's experience with speed humps is that they are generally a pain to
plow over, but the overall impacts are fairly minor. For maintenance purposes, speed humps are
preferable to traffic circles, since other cities have expressed that a certain part of the plow, the
wing, needs to be removed to plow around such devices as traffic circles. Speed humps do not
N:\pw\Engineering\GENERAL\SpeedHumps\032701 CityCouncil.DOC
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 5
require the removal of this section of the plow, however a decrease in speed is needed as the
plow passes over the hump.
According to the ITE guidelines, speed humps should not be installed on designated transit
routes, and if they are the design should accommodate the special characteristics of those
vehicles.
Policies and Experience from Others in the Twin Cities Metro Area
For comparison purposes, we looked into the policies other cities in the Metro Area are using to
address neighborhood traffic issues, as well as collect information regarding local experience
with speed humps. Many cities have a comprehensive "Traffic Calming Policy," which includes
more options than speed humps or stop signs to address vehicle speeds and volumes on
residential roadways. The City of Oakdale has such a policy. They currently don't allow speed
humps, but do allow other forms of traffic control. As part of this process, the petitioners may be
assessed the costs of any traffic calming measure, and are advised of this prior to initiating the
project. In addition, the City of St. Louis Park has a policy concerning requests for traffic
controls to aid in neighborhood traffic calming. This enhances the Council's ability to use
rational criteria in evaluating stop sign and other traffic control requests including speed humps.
Their policy addresses these requests in a progressive manner from nonphysical solutions and
eventually to physical measures if necessary.
The City of Burnsville currently has a speed -hump policy in effect. They have installed them in
3 areas: 140'' Street, Keller Lake Drive, and Knox Drive and reported them to be effective in
reducing the 85' percentile speed. Speed humps in Burnsville have reduced the 85' percentile
speed by an average of 8 percent and reduced traffic volumes by 33 percent. Approximately two
years after the installation of speed humps on 140' Street, the City surveyed the neighborhood to
get their opinion of the humps. One hundred -eight (67%) of the 162 returned surveys "believed
the speed humps have reduced the speed of the vehicles on neighborhood streets." Ninety-six
59%) of the 162 surveys wanted the speed humps to remain in.
The City of Rochester is looking into installing three speed humps on Fox Valley Drive, as well
as chokers and medians at the entrance of the subdivision called Gateways. They conducted a
neighborhood meeting on traffic calming and plan on assessing the residents on a lot basis 50%
of the cost of the project. They informed the neighborhood that they would monitor the speed
humps for three years, and if proven ineffective, could possibly remove them.
The City of Minneapolis also has a traffic calming policy, and have found speed humps to be
effective in reducing vehicle speeds. As part of their policy, the residents who live on the block
and sign the petition agree to any cost associated with the installation unless other City funding is
available to pay for the cost.
The City of Savage has prepared a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) to
address neighborhood traffic concerns on local streets. As a part of this policy, criteria for speed-
N\pw\Engineering\GENERAL\SpeedHumps\032701 CityCouncil.DOC
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 6
hump installation in the City is also provided. To consider who pays for the installation of
traffic -calming improvements, the City of Savage uses the same guidelines as their public
improvement project policy, where the proposed cost responsibility is shown in the feasibility
study, which can vary from project to project. Ultimately, the City Council makes the decision
on how much the City pays versus the costs assessed to the residents. In the past, the City of
Savage has paid for the installation of speed humps, at no cost to the neighborhood. A recent
improvement that was done including striping, signing, and speed humps was also done at the
City's expense. The Council determined that the improvement benefited the entire community,
and therefore didn't feel it was appropriate to assess the neighborhood for any of the cost.
A few cities in the metro area have also been using portable speed humps, which can be installed
on a roadway on a temporary basis. These portable humps can be installed rather easily in a
couple hours time, using a road crew of three. The humps are made of recycled tire rubber and
are durable under many types of weather conditions. However, it is recommended that they not
be used during the winter, due to damage the snow plows may cause to them. Although these
portable humps would provide a fairly easy way to test speed humps at various locations prior to
a permanent installation, the cost is rather expensive. The cost for each hump is approximately
6,000, which includes the high shipping costs due to the weight of these devices. The City of
St. Paul has purchased some portable speed humps, which they will lease to other cities for
approximately $500 (plus the cost of hardware) per month for each hump.
Consideration of an Overall City "Traffic Calming Program"
Currently the City has two policies in place to address neighborhood traffic concerns, a speed
hump policy and a stop -sign policy. Both policies can be used by residents for traffic calming
purposes when specific, objective criteria are met. The City Council may want to consider
incorporating these policies into a comprehensive "Traffic Calming Program." Using this type
of a program, the City has a wider variety of tools to consider for traffic calming purposes. The
program could involve a first-year process to educate the neighborhood through a combination of
educational/enforcement programs:
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaign
Traffic Safety Newsletter/Flyers
Brush Trimming to Improve Sight Distance
Pavement Markings
Additional Signing (speed limit, parking, dead-end, school signs, etc.)
Increased Enforcement
Speed Trailer
Permanent Radar Sign
Neighborhood Speed Watch
Photo Radar
Turn restrictions (full-time or peak hour)
N:\pw\Engineeri ng\GENERAL\SpeedHumps\032701 CityCouncil.DOC
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 7
Parking Modifications
Speed Limit Changes (in limited situations, according to State Law)
If the first-year measures are not considered effective, the City could proceed in considering
physical roadway treatments as shown below. In addition, the emergency services providers
should be involved in this second phase.
Full roadway closures (cul-de-sac streets)
Partial roadway closures (diverters)
Chicanes (a series of staggered curb extensions, forming s -shaped curves)
Curb Extensions
Traffic Circles
Center Median Islands
Street Narrowing
Speed Humps
Raised Crosswalks
Raised Intersections
Neighborhood Entry Treatments
Textured Pavements
Curvilinear Reconstruction
Assessments could also be considered if physical treatments are requested. This would be a
rather involved process with required public hearings, notifications, etc., but at this point in the
process the affected neighborhoods should be well informed. The "benefiting" properties would
need to be determined and a tiered assessment could be applied, i.e. less assessment for
properties not abutting the street in question but who would still receive a "neighborhood"
benefit from a speed hump installation.
Possible Adjustments to the Existing Policy
Signatures Needed for Petitions — Should this include other properties, not abutting the
roadway where the speed humps are proposed, but whose primary access to/from the
neighborhood is that route? The City could consider requiring 75% of the signatures of the
residents directly abutting the roadway and signatures from 50% of the residents on
roadways, not directly on that roadway, but on a connecting roadway where that is their
primary route to/from the neighborhood.
Spacing of Humps — Based on the current City policy, speed humps are to be placed at
intervals of approximately 250 feet to 500 feet, although this can vary depending on existing
conditions. Placing speed humps much farther apart than this can result in greater speeds
between the humps, not only reducing the effectiveness of the entire speed hump installation,
but possibly creating a worse problem than before the installation.
N:\pw\Enginmring\GENERAL\SpeedHumps\03270ICityCounciI DOC
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 8
Location of Humps/Roadway Types — Based on the ITE guidelines, speed humps in the
United States should be installed only on roadway facilities functionally classified as local
streets, as defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AASHTO) publication A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Based on
these standards, local streets primarily permit direct access to abutting properties and service
to through traffic is deliberately discouraged. These types of roadways are usually not
designated as primary or routine emergency routes or bus routes.
Cost Assessment of Speed Humps — Currently the City pays 100% of the costs associated with
speed hump installation and/or removal. However, based on the recent increase in requests,
the City may need to re-evaluate the feasibility of being fully responsible for those costs,
based on available funds. Many cities set an annual budget for traffic calming measures, and
then prioritize the requests. The highest ranking projects receive City funding, but the other
neighborhoods are either required to help pay for the entire or partial installation.
Based on one information source, the City of Abilene studied nine other Texas cities with
speed hump policies in 1997. Of the nine, 3 required neighborhoods or residents to pay the
full amount, 1 city (Houston) funded the installation, and the others apply a combination of
City and private funding.
Overall Process — The City Council may want to consider changing the overall process to
approve speed humps to include mandatory informational meetings and education programs.
In addition, a more comprehensive "Traffic Calming Program" could be developed to
include a larger variety of traffic -calming tools, with physical changes to the roadway used as
a last resort.
Recommended Modifications to the Existing City Policy
Based on the experience the City has had with the current petition process, the staff recommends
that more signatures are needed for the speed -hump petition. Currently, signatures are required
from properties directly abutting the roadway where the speed humps are proposed. Although
the residents along this roadway are impacted by the speeds and traffic volumes most directly,
the residents on adjoining cul-de-sacs are impacted by the installation of speed humps.
Therefore, a percentage of signatures should be required for the petition from properties on these
adjoining cul-de-sac roadways. The City could consider requiring 75% of the signatures of the
residents directly abutting the roadway and signatures from 50% of the residents on the adjoining
cul-de-sacs.
To address concerns of emergency vehicles and city busses, additional guidelines should be
incorporated into the current policy to limit the types of roadways where speed humps could be
considered. Our staff recommendation is to prohibit speed hump installations on designated
truck routes, transit routes, or primary emergency vehicle access routes.
N:\pw\Engineering\GENERAL\SpeedHumps\037701 CityCouncil.DOC
Dwight D. Johnson, Daniel L. Faulkner
03/23/01
Page 9
A final recommendation is to revise the overall process currently used for speed humps and stop -
sign installations, and incorporate them into one comprehensive "Traffic Calming Program" to
address a broader range of traffic issues. This would involve more mandatory informational
meetings and education programs as a first phase. If these measures are not effective, the City
could consider physical roadway treatments, and would have a variety of tools to consider based
on the particular neighborhood. This program gets the residents more involved throughout the
entire process and gives the City more flexibility in addressing traffic issues. The Police and Fire
departments should also be involved in this process, realizing that traffic calming solutions can
be a trade off between improved quality of life and emergency response time.
N:\pw\Engineering\GENERAL\SpeedHumps\032701 CityCouncil.DOC
Final Report
Fire Service Task Force
V
December 2000
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
763) 509-5000
hours per month. The program reduces a firefighter's committed time by consolidating call
response, training, maintenance, and public education obligations.
Training has become more efficient as nearly all required training is offered during duty crew
shifts.
Public education and fire prevention programs have increased by 32 %.
Financial benefits have been achieved due to a reduction in expenditures for paid -on-call
wages.
Response times have been decreased, and therefore the level of service to the community has
improved.
RESPONSE TIME
One key measure used to gauge the level of service provided by the Fire Department is "response
time"—the time it takes for the Fire Department to respond to a call.
When discussing response times, the following terms are often used:
Pre -notification Time—the time elapsed from point of ignition until the fire is discovered and
reported to 911 center.
Dispatch Time—the time elapsed from call to 911 center to dispatch of the fire department
In-service Time—the time elapsed from dispatch of the fire department to the truck going out the
door of the fire station
Travel Time—time elapsed from the truck going out the door of the fire station to the scene
Response Time—time elapsed from dispatch of the fire department to arrival on the scene
Set Up Time—the time elapsed from arrival on the scene until water applied
From the fire control standpoint, one minute saved on one of these factors is as valuable as one
minute saved on another. All time elapsed is critical when considering life safety. There are
other factors that can impact response time, such as weather, geographical location and
infrastructure. The Fire Department cannot affect some of these factors.
Pre -notification time can be improved by property owners installing alarm systems. All new
commercial buildings in the City are required to install and maintain alarm systems connected to
a central monitoring station. While more alarm systems may mean more false alarms, they can
significantly reduce the pre -notification time when properly used and maintained.
Travel time can be influenced by a number of factors. The street pattern created as the City
develops must consider travel time and accessibility for emergency vehicles. Because Plymouth
has a large number of cul-de-sac residential streets, it is important to provide a good network of
collector and minor arterial streets. The number and length of cul-de-sacs should be limited and
more than one access route is ideal.
Even small changes to city streets can affect response times. The City Council has approved
installation of speed humps in several locations in the City to divert cut -through traffic and to
reduce speeding. The humps create a gentle vehicle rocking motion that results in most vehicles
17
N
slowing to 15 miles per hour or less at each hump and 25 to 30 mph between properly spaced
humps in a system. Speed humps are installed at intervals of approximately 250 feet to 500 feet.
There have been several speed humps in a series approved in Plymouth. It is possible that speed
humps could negatively impact emergency response in certain circumstances. A study
conducted in 1997 in Austin, Texas found that delays ranged from 2.3 seconds per hump to 9.7
seconds per hump. One hump would not cause a meaningful delay; however, an emergency
vehicle having to cross several humps to get to a call could be significant. Appendix 22 contains
information on the impacts of speed humps on response times.
Traffic control devices can also pose a challenge for travel times. At the initiative of the Fire
Department, the City's police and fire vehicles have been equipped with Opticom (the brand
name for the traffic preemption equipment) to allow public safety personnel to manipulate traffic
signals. This can significantly reduce travel time and improve safety for motorists as well. Not
all of the city's controlled intersections have Opticom controls at this time. As new signals are
installed they include the equipment. When the installations previously approved by the City
Council have been completed, all except 15 signals will have traffic preemption equipment.
Those remaining signals are on the edge of the City where fire response time would not be
impacted and therefore have not been identified as a priority. For more discussion on traffic
preemption equipment, see Appendix 16.
The locations of the City's fire stations also affect travel time. The location of the station
determines how quickly firefighters can reach the station when paged. If sufficient, affordable
housing is not available within a short travel distance, it may make it more difficult to recruit and
retain personnel. Since Plymouth is geographically a large community (almost 36 square miles)
some areas are quite a distance from an existing fire station. For that reason, Plymouth has
studied the possible need for a fourth fire station to be built to serve the northwestern portion of
the City. Models have shown that travel times to portions of the City could be improved by the
addition of a fourth station (see Appendix 19 for the full report on Fire Station 4 locations).
In-service time for a paid -on-call fire department is greatly affected by how long it takes for the
firefighter to travel from his or her home or place of work to the fire station. This is the primary
reason why the Fire Department has required that firefighters live or work within 5 minutes
travel time from their assigned station. One of the most significant benefits of the duty crew
program has been the dramatic reduction of in-service times. The Fire Department reports that
the average in-service time in 1999 during non -duty crew hours was 7 minutes, 21 seconds.
During duty crew hours, the average in-service time was 1 minute, 39 seconds. It is a goal of the
Fire Department for the truck to leave the door within one minute of a call during duty crew
shifts.
The NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) and OSHA make no recommendation on
average or minimum response time. The Sumek study (Appendix 13) indicated in 1991 that
current average response times are adequate and acceptable to the Council." That acceptable
total response time was 9 to 12 minutes. It does not appear that the Council has endorsed a
specific goal since that time. However, since 1991 average response times have improved. This
is in large part the result of the duty crew program.
3
Other recommendations:
The possible impacts on emergency response should be considered when the City Council
reviews future requests for speed humps.
Plymouth should provide data and encourage ISO to improve the City's insurance rating
from 5 to 4 at the appropriate time.
2001 Recommendations
Duty crew and Fire Department operations:
Expand duty -crew coverage to include 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
Investigate the potential for expanding mutual aid agreements and to add automatic mutual
aid with Minnetonka and West Metro.
Review the program to reduce false alarms and increase penalties to discourage repeated
false alarms.
Hiring additional full-time staff.•
Hire one new full-time position in 2001 to consistently fill duty crew shifts during daytime
hours and assist with supervision, training and recruiting. Proceed with the hiring and
selection process for the new position and advance hiring to 2000 ifpossible.
Consider accelerating the 2002 recommendation to hire one or more of the 3 full-time Fire
Prevention Officers in the Community Development Department, as funding permits. Duties
would include inspecting existing commercial and industrial buildings for pre planning and
basic fire code/safety issues.
Firefighter pay:
Implement a 2001 wage adjustment as follows:
2000 2001
Base Wage: 9.75 10.75
Haz Mat/ Rad: 10.75 11.75
Study and develop a pay system for rewarding performance and longevity.
Worker compensation insurance benefit.
The City should pay the cost of supplemental insurance to increase disability insurance
benefits to firefighters who earn $58,506 or more in their regular jobs.
Legislative initiatives:
The City should pursue a legislative agenda related to firefighter staffing issues.
Other recommendations:
In order to measure progress toward achieving the Task Force recommendations, the City
Manager, Public Safety Director and Fire Chief should closely monitor progress through
monthly reporting of key performance factors.
53
9
DATE: January 30, 1997
TO: Craig Gerdes - Director of Public Safety
FROM: Richard C. Kline - Fire Chief jr-c<_
SUBJECT: Traffic Management and Emergency Response
This memo is in response to a request from Mayor Tierney to reply to a citizen concern
regarding the use of speed bumps, and specifically the impact speed bumps have on the
response time of emergency response agencies. Attached with the citizen letter is an
article from the January/February 1997 issue of the NFPA Journal. The attached
article, "Things That Go Bump In The Night", is an excerpt from the report The
Imyact of Traffic Management Programs on the Delivery of Fire Suppression and
Emer encs Medical Services. This study and resulting report where conducted by the
Austin (Texas) Fire Department (AFD).
Although the Plymouth Fire Department has not conducted a study (research) related to
the effect of speed bumps on our response time(s), fire department staff are in
concurrence with the findings of the AFD study that speed bumps do have a negative
impact on the total response time of emergency vehicles. Fire apparatus must slow their
speed significantly to safely navigate speed bumps, this logically will increase the time
it takes apparatus to arrive to the emergency.
It is the opinion of fire department staff that physical traffic control devices do have an _
impact on the total response time of fire department apparatus. Physical control devices
in use in Plymouth include speed bumps/humps, traffic circles, cul-de-sac street design,
lack of through streets and the recent narrowing of street width in some developments.
All of these control measures will impact, in a negative fashion, the response time of
emergency apparatus.
Traffic management programs must take into account the needs of emergency service
providers. A partnership between engineering, community development and emergency
services is crucial to develop strategies and a comprehensive plan to address traffic
management concerns.
5
North
Memorial
Health Care.
An Org-bbl n of Heahh Can Profexsbo-h
North
Memorial
Health Care.
M 0ganfrarl0n OIHM4 Care Pro eWo u*
Pete Jaroscak
Dfneaor ofSafety 6 Seturfty
3300 Oakdale Avenue North • Robbinsdale, MN 55422-2900Date: January 22, 1997 (612)520-5642 • fax (612)520-7113
To: Mayor Joy Tierney
City of Plymouth
From: Pete Jaroscak, Director
Safety and Security
Subject: Speed Bumps
It was a pleasure meeting you at Joy Robb's retirement party. My wife Gloria and
I are both employees of North Memorial and residents of Medicine Lake.
Enclosed is an article out of the January/February issue of National Fire
Protection Journal. As a retired Fire Marshal for the City of Robbinsdale I am
concerned about the safety of the speed bumps on South Shore Drive. The article
touches on various studies that have been done re the safety of speed bumps as
they relate to response times for emergency vehicles. I thought you may find this
article interesting.
I would appreciate your passing this on to Fire Chief Kline if he has not seen it.
Anything you can do to eliminate these bumps surrounding our community would
be greatly appreciated by all concerned. Thank you for your interest in this and if I
as a citizen or safety official can be of any help, please contact me.
docoment2
6
t.
l:v161
V
i
Cities all over the United States are busy building
speed humps to cut down on the flow of traffic throughp ,
residential neighborhoods. And they seem to work—
cars have to slow down to get over them in one piece.
o But so do fire trucks.
U over the United States today; communities are
implementing neighborhood traffic management
1 programs to providc a safer, more livable envi-
ronment. Physical barriers, such as cul-de-sacs, and traffic
divcrters, such as speed humps, havc sprung up nationwide. Street
closures are being approved by many city councils, and many
newer subdivisions are installing entrance gates and cutting down
on the number of streets into the dn-elopments—all to limit
access to neighborhoods.
Austin, Texas, like at least 47 other cities around the country,
has chosen to deal with its problem trade by implementing a
speed hump program. And it's been happy with the results: In
the two years the program's been in existence, the Public
Works and Transportation Department has been asked to''.
build speed humps on more than 600 cin- streets.
Obviously, the cih.- feels that speed humps work.They cut .
i
speed humps on a third as many streets. And Dallas, at appmximatcly
400 square miles, is considerably Luger than Austin, which covers about
220 square miles.
The speed humps -30 of them, both curved and flat-topped- here
installed in March 1995 in six Austin neighborhoods to test their effec-
tiveness in reducing vehicle speed. They did the job. Data collected
before and after the speed humps were installed indicate that the curved
speed humps reduced vehicle speeds by 5 to 15 miles per hour, while
the Qat-topped humps reduced speeds by 7 to 10 miles per hour.
According to surveys conducted in the first four pilot neighbor-
hoods, to which an average of 57 percent of the recipients responded,
87.5 percent of the residents felt that traffic speeds had slowed on their
street:.The majoriry-74 percent -of residents in two neighborhoods
also felt that tnflic volume had decreased, lvhile 59 percent of resi-
dent; in the other two neighborhoods noticed a change in traffic
volume. Overall, 70 percent of the residcn-,i had a favorable opinion of
speed humps as a speed reduction measure, and 55.5 percent felt that
the spctd humps had improved the quality of life in the neighborhood.
However, both the Austin Fire and E:NIS Departments %vorricd that
multiple humps would decrease response and patient transport times
and that they'd subject paramedics in the back of UNIS units to injury
if they lost their balance when crossing one.
In Much 1996, the cin• manager, Jesus Garza, :eked the Fire and
E:\IS Departments to pleasure the delay in response times for emer-
gcn V vehicles responding over speed humps. A fire engine, a fire truck:,
and an ENIS ambulance were used to conduct the tests on a residential
street with a postai speed limit of 30 md,.s per hour. The street con-
tained five tuned speed humps spaced bemvecn 358 and 433 feet apart.
A similar street of about the same length containing no speed humps
was used for comparison. The roads were closed to tragic during the
at a speed decided by the driver,,aith EMS medics in the back simu-
lating care to a critical patient. Stop watches were used to time each
nun, and radar guns measured the vehicles' speeds. Videos were made
to show how crossing the humps affected the vehicles.
For the various combinations of test_, the time needed to travel a
length of street that had no speed hump was compared to the time
needed to travel a length of street «ith the speed humps. The difference
between the too travel times equaled the total delay.Thc total delay time
divided by the number of humps equaled the delay per speed hump.
The tests revealed that 20 miles per hour was close to, or more than,
the reasonable safe speed to cross a speed hump. None of the drivers
felt that they could maintain good control of their vehicles at 20 miles
per hour, and they feared that the jolts would damage the vehicles.
The drivers' individual performances didnt appear to influence the
outcome signiticanth_•. Their choices of :peed in the runs during which
they used their own discretion were relatively consistent.
The time delay for each speed hump was found to van- bemvicen 2.3
and 9.7 seconds. The shortest delay of 2.3 seconds occurred with an
empty- ambulance traveling at an average discretionary speed of 16.8
miles per hour. The gre.atest delay also occurred %vith the ambulance.
When transporting a patient, the ambulance's average speed slowed to
6.6 miles per hour, and the average delay per hump rose to 9.7 seconds.
In the nuns with the fire engine and truck, the average delays per hump
were in the 3- to 5 -second range.
The sio ificance of the delay is apparent %vhen you consider that most
streets with speed humps have more than one. In the rase of an ambu-
lance transporting a patient, this can man a delay on the way to the
hospital of close to one minute for everystreet with multiple humps.
testa.
Each vehicle made two runs on each of three tests, using a different
driver for each run. The vehicles crossed each hump at 15 miles per
hour, at 20 hula per hour, and at a speed chosen by the drivers. A
fourth test was conducted using an EiL IS unit that crossed the humps
Average emergency response times in Austin
speed hump route
in seconds
F2 13 14 5 AvUW
6 10 3.18 15J4 :9.69 41.14
ori dnersti«+ RM11
Amir:.t 322
n !3 14
13.27 2580 36.48
15 Average
47.61 2.26
Em** 3.56 1729 25.13 39.69 60.22 2.83
0
Truk 3.83 15.60 21.61 40.77 51.14 2.99
With patient Hung 11 R 13 14
AMUNK. 4.79 2096 4117 59.60
Resolving the conflictsSohowdocsacin• solve its traffic problems withour jeopardizing its
emergency services:
Solving neighborhood traffic problems is as much a political problem.
as a technical one. Many attempts to resole traffic issues fail because
well-meaning elected officials, engineers, or planners listen to a small,
vocal group from the communis• and implement a traffic plan, only tojfaceresentmentfromaffectedpartiesvvholverenitinvolvedinthe .
2. process. To avoid this problem, communities must include all affected
o parties, including emergency service providers, in the planning process.
Because traffic management programs appear to increase neighbor-
hood livability, there will be a grit deal of pressure on elected officials
to approve such programs in their communities. It's critical that they
not react hastily and pressure city officials to come up with a quick fix.
When asked to make decisions about traffic management programs,
elected officials must clearly understand the tradeoffs that hill occur in
emergency response times and capabilities. Citizens will inevitably
complain when response times are slowed, and elected officials will have
to support their cir's emergency agencies against these complaints.
Eme gcncy response provider will never come to consensus on trafficmanagementprojectsifthecfracthattheresultingreductions in
response times will be blamed on their incompetence or lack of opera-
tional efficiency:
Planning professionals should also take into account the negariveeffectssuchaplanwillhaveonemergencyagencics•Thev mustrir'cap
Januar.•/Fcbniary 1997 n'FPAlournal
1isMPH "11 F2 13 14 5 AvUW
6 10 3.18 15J4 :9.69 41.14 5329 3.69
4*
is MPH Hump 01 rt 13 14 15 Average
e.TEuLW" 385 1633 79.54 42.65 57.41 4.56
With patient Hung 11 R 13 14
AMUNK. 4.79 2096 4117 59.60
Resolving the conflictsSohowdocsacin• solve its traffic problems withour jeopardizing its
emergency services:
Solving neighborhood traffic problems is as much a political problem.
as a technical one. Many attempts to resole traffic issues fail because
well-meaning elected officials, engineers, or planners listen to a small,
vocal group from the communis• and implement a traffic plan, only tojfaceresentmentfromaffectedpartiesvvholverenitinvolvedinthe .
2. process. To avoid this problem, communities must include all affected
o parties, including emergency service providers, in the planning process.
Because traffic management programs appear to increase neighbor-
hood livability, there will be a grit deal of pressure on elected officials
to approve such programs in their communities. It's critical that they
not react hastily and pressure city officials to come up with a quick fix.
When asked to make decisions about traffic management programs,
elected officials must clearly understand the tradeoffs that hill occur in
emergency response times and capabilities. Citizens will inevitably
complain when response times are slowed, and elected officials will have
to support their cir's emergency agencies against these complaints.
Eme gcncy response provider will never come to consensus on trafficmanagementprojectsifthecfracthattheresultingreductionsin
response times will be blamed on their incompetence or lack of opera-
tional efficiency:
Planning professionals should also take into account the negariveeffectssuchaplanwillhaveonemergencyagencics•Thev mustrir'cap
Januar.•/Fcbniary 1997 n'FPAlournal
Resolution No. 99-294
July 6, 1999
Policy for the Consideration and Installation of Speed Humps
The City Council is granted the authority under State Statute to approve or deny
all traffic control requests based on conformance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) and local ordinances and regulations which may
be influenced by environmental, social, economic and/or financial implications within the
city.
The City Council understands that because of the emotional situation often
associated with some requests, it is sometimes difficult to analyze such requests using
rational criteria. To enhance the City Council's ability to use rational criteria in evaluating
traffic control requests and minimize the installation of unnecessary signage and traffic
control devices throughout the city and provide for safer and more livable neighborhoods,
guidelines should be established.
Consideration of speed hump installation will only be given after the "problem"
situation has been addressed in accordance with the MnMUTCD and City policy/practice
including the Stop Sign Policy and traffic law enforcement. Speed hump systems may be
installed when the following guidelines are met:
1. The average traffic volume must be less than 1,500 vehicles and more than
200 vehicles in a 24 hour period (average daily traffic).
2. 50 percent of surveyed motorists must exceed 30 m.p.h. and/or 30 percent
must exceed 35 m.p.h., or 50 percent of the streets' traffic must be cut -
through traffic as determined by traffic counts and traffic forecasting
techniques.
3. The roadway must be less than or equal to 36 feet in width.
4. The road must have no more than two traffic lanes.
M*//ply_shekrcrcecoun6Vcouwilyoliey/poliryyublicrorka/SPccd Hm94tbe
io
Speed Hump Policy
Page 3
then be mailed to all residents whose property abuts the proposed limits of the
installation, as well as to other property owners use this street on a daily basis as
determined by the City Engineer.
4. A date will then be established for City Council consideration of the speed hump
installation request and all of the affected property owners as identified in point
No. 3 will receive notice of the City Council meeting.
ph_e MiesrodeaeeiVCMMCijjOjky/policY_pdblK rorkaf5peed_H=p dW
Kel
a r
4.03 Traffic Control
Traffic control consisting of signs, markings, and possibly flashing signals is essen-
tial to warn roadwav users of a speed humps presence and guide their subsequent
action. While no minimum standards exist for devices to be used in conjunction
with speed humps, devices typically used by agencies include the following:
Traffic Signs. The most common warning sign used for speed humps
appears to be the standard MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices) W8-1 BUMP warning sign. While the MUTCD does allow spe-
cial warning signs for nonstandard situations, and some jurisdictions
have installed HUMP or ROAD HUMP signs, most agencies have found
the BUMP sign to be appropriate for use with speed humps. The sign is
typically installed in advance of the hump and at the hump although
some agencies install only one or the other. Advance warning signs
should be located based on MUTCD Table II -1, A Guide for Advance
Warning Sign Placement Distance. Some agencies also require installa-
tion of an advisory speed plate indicating, the recommended crossing
speed at the hump. Advisory speed plates are also considered useful in
educating unfamiliar roadway users of the recommended crossing speed
when humps are initially installed. Australian Standard AS 1742 Part 13
1991) provides a comprehensive guide to signing local street traffic
management devices and schemes.
Some agencies install a special supplemental plate indicating multiple
humps are in place for a certain -length of street segment. These,signs
typically carry the Legend Next XX Feet and are installed under the first
hump sign preceding a series of humps. Side road approaches that inter-
sect a street within a series of humps also should be evaluated with regard
to the need for advanced notification signing. Some agencies install
warning signs with supplemental arrow plates indicating the location of
speed humps on an intersecting street.
Although undesirable in residential areas, in certain instances it also may
be,rystified to install special attention flags or flashing lights to speed
hump warning signs. These devices are sometimes used in the initial
installation period or in locations where unusual combinations of road-
way or vehicle operating conditions present special conditions that war-
rant additional warning devices.
Markings. Markings in use by agencies include advance word messages
typically BUMP) and special markings directly in advance of, or on. the
hump. Several hump marking designs are in use today, but the design
selected should not state confusion with standard crosswalk markings
unless the hump location is intended for pedestrian crossings. Pavement
word and symbol markings should be installed in conformance with
ILTCD guidelines.
17
Additional Studies Provided by the
Fire Department
12
i
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
FIRE AND. RESCUE COMMISSION
THE EFFECTS OF SPEED HUMPS.
AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES -
ON RESPONDING FIRE -RESCUE- APPARATUS.
IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
TESTS CONDUCTED JOINTLY BY
THE FIRE AND RESCUE COMMISSION AND
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
WITH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY:
Department of Fire and Rescue Services
Montgomery. County Police Department
Cabin John Park Volunteer Fire Department
Hillandale Volunteer Fire Department
Bethesda Fire Department
AUGUST 1997
13
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to their concern for the alleged adverse effects of speed humps and traffic circles on fire -
rescue response, the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Commission, at its October 10, 1996
meeting, passed two motions concerning this issue: 1) that field tests be conducted to quantify
and analyze the effect of speed humps and traffic circles on response times; 2) that the
Department of Public Works and" Transportation provide these test results to the public when _j' applications for speed humps and traffic circles are submitted to them. These motions came about
as.the result of concerns of how speed humps and traffic circles adversely affect response times;
and they were based upon the results of speed. hump and traffic circle tests conducted in Portla>d,
Orion and Austin, Texas where quantitative data showed significant delays for fire -rescue
apparatus.
On April 30, 1997, the Fire and Rescue Commission (FRC) and Department of Public Works and
Transportation (DPWT), with assistance from other local fire -rescue and police organizations,
conducted field tests of fire -rescue apparatus traversing speed humps and traffic circles of the
types typically found throughout Montgomery County. Two courses were utilized for this
purpose, one having three' I2 -ft Watts -type speed humps and the other having a single traffic
circle. Twelve test runs were conducted on each course, featuring four types of apparatus (i.e-,
engine, tiller -style ladder truck, aerial tower, ambulance) and three different driverspper vehicle.
The test runs were timed- and the results compared to calculated times for courses of sin filar
distances without speed humps and traffic circles in order to determine delays attributed to these
devices.
The results of the Montgomery County speed hump and traffic circle tests confirmed that these
two types of traffic calming devices cause delays for fire -rescue vehicles en route to incidents. j.
The amount of delaywas found to be dependent upon three factors -- vehicle typetsize, type of
traffic calming device, and driver discretion regarding speed.
On the speed hump_ course, where the units were attempting to maintain a constant speed of 25
mph, the average impact delay per hump was found to range between: a high of 7.3 seconds for
the Ladder Truck and a low of 2.8 seconds for the Aerial Tower. The higher delay is equivalent
to responding from a station .05 mile per speed hump further away from the incident location!
along an unimpeded route. More importantly, the four vehicles averaged slightly less than 201 mph
across the speed hump test route, about half the response cruising speed of 35-40 mph typically
attained by fire -rescue vehicles on unimpeded roads. Should speed hump -impeded routes taken
by responding units limit average speed to 20 mph, the amount of area they can serve within 5
C, .
Multiple speed humps spaced over short distances are commonplace in the County`.
iv
minutes= may drop to 1.3 linear miles (equivalent to 6.8 sq. mi. surrounding.the station) versus the
2.0 linear miles (16 sq. mi.) served within 5 minutes along unimpeded routes whereby a cruising
speed of 3540 mph is attainable.
On the traffic circle course, where the units were attempting to maintain a constant speed of 35
mph, the average delay ranged between a high of 7.0 seconds for the Ladder Truck and a low of `
3.2 seconds for the Ambulance. Similar to the speed hump test results, the higher delay is
equivalent to responding from a station about .05 mile per traffic_ circle further away from the
incident location along a route free of traffic circles. Of greater importance, the four test vehicles r
averaged slightly less than 28 mph on the traffic circle test course, about 7=12 mph less than the
response cruising speed of 35-40 mph attained on unimpeded roads.
It is important to emphasize that these TCD tests were conducted at speeds appropriate for the
two test .courses; but somewhat slower than the typical response cruising speed (i.e., -3 5-40 mph)
of fire -rescue apparatus. If similar tests were conducted in Montgomery County. atspeeds .
approaching 40 mph, greater delays would be expected, as indicated by the results of the Portland
and Austin tests. The Montgomery County test results could, therefore, be considered as
representing minimum delays that one would expect for responding fire -rescue vehicles in the
County.
The Montgomery County tests results, in combination with those of the. Portland and Austin. tests;
confirm that speed humps and traffic circles cause considerable delays for responding fire -rescue
apparatus,. which may adversely impact the outcome. of certain life-threatening incidents such as
those involving cardiac arrest, uncontrolled bleeding, or persons trapped in burning buildings or
vehicles. Delays of this nature must be given serious attention by -the public and government
officials who determine the employment and specific placement of speed humps and traffic circles
in their communities and jurisdictions. Those in favor of these devices must be willing to accept,
the likely probability of slower fire -rescue service delivery:in their community and neighborhoods..
While speed humps and traffic circles offer a cost-efficient approach to reducing vehicular speed_ .
and reducing the number of traffic accidents in neighborhoods, they present the disadvantage of
slowing fire -rescue vehicles.
5 -minutes represents a response time goal, unadopted in Montgomery County, which
assumes 1.5 minutes for dispatch, turnout, and acceleration of units up to response cruising speed; .
and 3.5 minutes for travel time once cruising speed has been attained.
v
S
1i
t
REQQI I VIEN ATIONS
As a result of the speed hump and traffic ciFcle tests described above, the following
recommendations are offered by the Fire and Rescue Commission and Department of Public
Works and Transportation:
L. The results of this study be made available by the Department of Public Works and
Transportation to any County resident or community organization who. approaches DPWT
concerning the installation of speed humps and traffic circles in their neighborhoods. These test
results should be made available in the form of either this report or a condensed format appro ed
by both the FRC and DPWT. A community pursuing speed hump/traffic circle installation wili
then have the appropriate information at hand to make an informed decision. Should they choose
hump/circle installation, the community will be, in essence, accepting the fact that fire -rescue units
will require greater time to reach locations 'in their neighborhood.
2. DPWT continue to notify the local fire -rescue corporation of any request for speed hump or
traffic circle installation in their first -due area so that the corporation is given the opportunity io
discuss their concerns with the originating party prior to DPWT approval of installation.
3. The issues and results contained in this report be addressed in the upcoming evaluation of the
County's Traffic Calming Program mandated by the County Council in July, 1997. During the
evaluation process, consideration should be given to establishing "primary emergency response
routes" for fire -rescue apparatus for which' traffic; calming strategies would be limited to those
which do not impede emergency apparatus. An approach of this nature would ensure that
response routes used extensively by fire -rescue vehicles on a daily basis be kept free of emergency
vehicle -impeding speed humps and traffic circles, while continuing to allow the presence of humps
and circles on roadways lacking the "primary emergency response route" designation. This effort
should be led by DPWT and include parties having an interest in the issue.
I A similar comparison to Austin cannot be made because Austin did not have traffic
circles in 1996 when they conducted their Iests.
A similar approach is being taken in both Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas.
11
WAT
APPENDIX B
TS SPEED HUMP
CROSS-SECTION
NOT DRAWN TO SCALE)
12 FEET
TOP VIEW
1-7
What is Question 2A?
WHAT IS QUESTION 2A?
Ballot Question 2A is a citizen -sponsored initiative to improve emergency
response in Boulder, Colorado. It was placed on the November 2000 ballot
through a successful, grassroots petition drive under the banner SECONDS
COUNT! The proposed ordinance prohibits two kinds of traffic devices
prow by city tests to delay fire trucks and ambulances. The first includes
vertical obstacles like speed bumps and raised intersections. And the second
msmall traffic, circles that delay emergency vehicles instead of helping
traffic flow smoothly.
Question 2A will not raise taxes. It will not affect traffic devices on private
property or in parking lots. It has no impact on large traffic circles. It does
not prevent the city from using other methods of speed limit enforcement. It
only removes dangerous impediments to emergency vehicles installed in the
mistaken belief that they improve neighborhood safety.
The exact wording of Question 2A on the ballot is shown below:
TRAFFIC DEVICES
Shall an ordinance be adopted to prohibit certain kinds of traffic devices on
public streets, including speed bumps, raised crosswalks, raised
intersections, and traffic circles with rotary islands smaller than 50 feet?
FOR THE MEASURE
AGAINST THE MEASURE
Click here for the full text of the proposed SECONDS COUNT! ordinance.
http://www.users.gwest.net/--erinard/What%20is%202A.htm
M]
Page 1 of 1
3/22/01
w ny vote r utc i.R
Why Vote FOR 2A, the SECONDS COUNT!
Initiative?
Question 2A, the SECONDS COUNT! initiative, will help save lives and
property in fire and medical emergencies by removing purposely constructed
street obstacles proven to delay emergency vehicles. Boulder's emergency
service is already substandard, because our fire stations are too few and too
far apart. (Even the new Station 7 on 55th Street only solves the problem for
a small area.) Yet City Council has decided to allow delay -causing speed
bumps, raised crossings, and small traffic circles even on the most critical
emergency response routes, such as primary streets connecting fire stations
with neighborhoods and the main emergency approaches to the hospital.
City Council rejects objective, independently verified proof that traffic
devices covered by Question 2A create more risk and will cost more lives by
delaying emergency response than they could possibly offset by slowing
traffic. Promoted by a few vocal activists as safety features protecting
pedestrians, the so-called traffic calming devices don't really work. There is
no research or evidence showing they improve safety in residential
neighborhoods. Quite the contrgry, Boulder police statistics demonstrate
pedestrians are injured more frequently on neighborhood streets with the
devices than without.
Pagel of 2
According to city figures, the main effect of speed bumps and small traffic
circles is to divert up to 50 percent of traffic onto other streets, where
unsuspecting residents must endure someone else's problem. The city's
process for approving the devices doesn't even give residents on adjacent
streets a voice in the decision. Only those on the street and within 400 feet of
a device, who might benefit from traffic diversion, have a say. Even
residents further along, whose lives and property will be jeopardized by
delayed emergency service, aren't allowed to participate democratically.
Traffic obstacles also cause hardship for our disabled population. Physical
pain at speed bumps and tedious maneuvers around small circles limit
mobility and reduce access to public amenities and private homes. The
devices increase air and noise pollution as vehicles brake and accelerate.
And the myriad instructional and warning signs that accompany them intrude
on the visual environment.
About fifty times per year, a pedestrian is injured by an automobile in
Boulder, almost always on a major arterial roadway. Only a handful of
accidents occur in residential neighborhoods, and no one has been killed by
a speeding car on a residential street since police began keeping records.
But 4,897 times in 1999, there were medical emergencies. Our Fire
Department answered 1,817 fire emergencies and 398 time -critical
hazardous situations. On each of these 7,112 responses, a few seconds
could have been the margin between life and death. More than one-fourth of
http://www.users.qwest.net/—erinard/why_vote—for-2a.htm
W
3/22/01
Why vote FOR 2A
the time, help took longer than six minutes to arrive because it was already
too far away. And six minutes is the goal adopted by Boulder's City Council
because it doesn't want to pay for service meeting the nationally
recommended four minute response time.
Page 2 of 2
For someone living "downstream," each pair of speed bumps or traffic circles
has exactly the same effect as moving the fire station a tenth of a mile further
away. The citywide impact of speed bumps and traffic circles, installed
without consideration of the cumulative delay, is a risk we can't afford_
Question 2A offers uniform protection to citizens throughout town,
regardless of street classifications. It prevents a few loud voices from
endangering others or displacing a problem. Most importantly, it keeps
emergency service out of the hands of politicians so firefighters, paramedics,
and police can do their important jobs when a home catches fire, a child
chokes, or a grandparent suffers cardiac arrest.
Other Reasons to Support SECONDS COUNT! and Ballot Question 2A
http://www.users.qwest.net/--erinard/why_yote—for-2a.htm
20
3/22/01
Balancing the Tradeoffs -
How the City of Portland, Oregon Resolved the
Conflict Between Traffic Calming and
Emergency Response Services
By: Crysttal Atkins and Ed Wilson
Background
The City of Portland, Oregon is committed to providing a transportation system which
both protects the safety and livability of residential neighborhoods and responds to
emergency service needs. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
includes transportation policies and street classifications designed to carry out these
and other transportation objectives.
The policies of the Transportation Element are intended to help carry out the City's
vision of a transportation system that provides choice; one where walking, bicycling and
taking transit are viable options to driving. The street classifications of the
Transportation Element are known as the Arterial Streets Classifications and Policies
ASCP). They work to achieve policy goals by describing the levels of automobile,
transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck traffic appropriate for each street. The ASCP
establishes a clear hierarchy of traffic corridors designating facilities for trips of different
speed, volume, and length. Such a system would ideally discourage higher speed
through traffic from using local neighborhood streets, and local traffic from using major
arterials. This would add not only to the overall efficiency of the system, but to the
livability of city neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, not all local neighborhood streets are used as classified. Many
experience excessive traffic speeds and volumes. In response to resident complaints,
the City initiated the Traffic Calming Program to address these issues on Local Service
Streets in 1984. The program was later expanded to include Neighborhood Collectors
that were at least 75 percent residential in 1993. The program uses education,
enforcement, and engineering tools to address these problems.
The engineering component of the Traffic Calming Program's approach had become
problematic to emergency service providers, particularly on Neighborhood Collectors
since these streets often serve as emergency response routes. Of specific concern
were two types of slowing devices used by the Traffic Calming Program: speed bumps
and tragic circles. While these devices have the desired effect of slowing traffic on
residential streets, they also have the unintended effect of delaying emergency
response vehicles. An extensive study was undertaken in January 1996 by the Bureau
of Traffic Management and the Bureau of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services to
document the delay caused by these devices for six typical emergency vehicle types.
The delay ranged from 0.0 seconds (rescue vehicle crossing a 22' speed bump) to 10.7
bal
seconds (Ladder truck navigating around a traffic circle). Subsequently, several cities
across the country have performed similar studies with similar delay results.
In response to the high demand for traffic calming projects and the potential for delay in
emergency response delivery, the Portland City Council took action to resolve this
conflict. In April 1996 Council directed the Office Transportation and the Fire Bureau to
resolve this problem through a policy approach. Staff was directed to develop a new
emergency response policy and street classification system for incorporation into the
Transportation Element. While traffic slowing devices are not the only factors affecting
emergency response time (other factors include fire station locations, congestion levels,
and unlawful driving behavior), seven traffic calming projects scheduled to be
undertaken within two years were put on hold awaiting completion of the study.
Prior to the adoption of the new emergency response route classification, there was no
classification for emergency response routes in the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Element addresses the need for emergency
vehicle access in describing how designated traffic streets should function. Also prior to
the new classification, emergency service providers commented on the potential
Its of traffic calming projects on a case-by-case basis following the guidelines of
the Implementation Section of the Transportation Element. Having adopted policy
language on emergency response, accompanied by an emergency response
classNication system is beneficial for several reasons:
First it balances the need for prompt emergency response with the need for
slowing traffic on residential streets.
Second, it provides the City and its residents with clarity and certainty regarding
streets' eligibility for traffic slowing devices. An immediate benefit is in allowing
traffic slowing projects currently on hold to go forward, be modified, or be
dropped.
Third, it ensures a basic network of emergency response streets. This network
can be used to help route response vehicles in an emergency and to help the
City site future fire stations.
Fourth, it will be incorporated into the Transportation Element. This allows
emergency response needs to be considered with other modal needs when
changes to a street are considered.
Emergency Response Streets Classification Study
To assist in the study, a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed consisting of
seven members, representing the seven transportation districts of the City. Applicants
were sokited through established organization of Neighborhood Associations within the
City. Aside from geographic representation, members were selected based on their
Interest in the study, their experience and active participation on committees, and their
ability to see all sides of the Issue.
2Z
The role of the CAC was to advise the study's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in
developing an emergency response policy and street classification system for
Incorporation into the Transportation Element. The CAC also played a leading role in
developing the public review process for the study. CAC members worked with
Technical Advisory Committee members in staffing all public open houses and
responding to public feedback. The TAC consisted of staff from Transportation
Planning, the Traffic Calming Program, and the Fire Bureau.
The TAC sought advice in the following areas:
policy language to address the need for prompt emergency response,
criteria for selecting emergency response streets, and
emergency response street classification descriptions.
The Citizens Advisory Committee met with the TAC biweekly beginning in August 1997
for approximately seven months. A neutral facilitator was hired to moderate the CAC
meetings. The first CAC meetings focused on reviewing study goals, clarifying the roles
of CAC members and staff, and establishing ground rules. The CAC identified the
following key study issues and developed their Criteria for a Good Solution:
The classification system allows for prompt emergency response while protecting
e residential streets from excessive speeds and volumes.
The classification system is flexible enough to respond to changes over time,
e.g. changes in density, technology, etc.
The classification system is easily explained, defensible, and usable. IL5r)Ael
The classification system provides a hierarchy of emergency response routes.
The classification system can be used for future system planning, e.g. for routing
fire vehicles in an emergency, for siting future fire stations, for selecting Traffic
Calming projects, for using signal preemption Wong selected emergency
response corridors.
The classification system meets the liability concems of both the Fre Bureau and
the Traffic Calming Program by providing an objective decision making process.
The classification system if supportive of Region 2040 land use growth concepts.
These criteria were used to evaluate the quality of the final recornmendatici to City
Council.
With the assistance of the CAC, a new emergency response policy was crafted for the
Transportation Element. The policy recognizes the transportation system's role in
23
facllitating prompt emergency response. It also defines how the emergency response
classification system will be used. The policy is:
Provide a network of emergency response streets that facilitates prompt
emergency response. The emergency response classification system shall be
used to determine whether traffic slowing devices can be employed, to guide the
routing of emergency response vehicles, and to help site future fire stations.
In concert with the new policy language, two Emergency Response Street classification
descriptions were developed as the Major Emergency Response Streets were selected
and mapped. These are used to describe how emergency response streets should
function, specifies appropriate design treatments to facilitate prompt emergency
response, and indicate which streets are eligible for traffic slowing devices and which
are not. The two classification descriptions are as follows:
Major Emergency Response Streets
Functional Purpose
Major Emergency Response Streets are intended to serve primarily the longer,
most direct legs of emergency response trips.
OmIgn Treatment and QWrating Characteristics
Design treatments on Major Emergency Response Streets should enhance
mobility for emergency response vehicles by employing preferential treatments
such as Opticom. Major Emergency Response Streets are not eligible for traffic
slowing devices.
Minor Emergency Response Streets
Functional Purpose
Minor Emergency Response Streets are intended to serve primarily the shorter
legs of emergency response trips. All street not classified as Major Emergency
Response Streets are classified as Minor Emergency Response Streets.
Design Treatment and QM atina Characteristics
Minor Emergency Response Streets are designed and operated to provide
access to individual properties. Minor Emergency Response Streets are eligible
for traffic slowing devices.
The classification map was developed by the staff and the CAC which identifies Major
and Minor Emergency Response Streets. The designation of Major and Minor
Emergency Response Streets was a joint effort between the Transportation and Fire
Bureaus considering first, policy direction, and second, operational and programmatic
needs. The classification designations offer clarity and certainty to both bureaus, as
well as the public about streets' eligibility for traffic slowing devices.
2q
Major Emergency Response Streets were selected based on the following
considerations:
eligibility of streets for traffic slowing devices
spacinglconnectivity
traffic classifications
location of fire stations, and
topography.
Under current policy, District Collectors and higher arterials are ineligible for traffic
slowing devices, and were therefore automatically designated as Major Emergency
Response Streets. Neighborhood Collectors which are not at least 75 percent
residential are also ineligible for traffic slowing devices. These collectors were
designated as Major Emergency Response Routes were technical staff agreed that the
higher arterial network did not provide adequate coverage. In cases where additional
Major Emergency Response Routes were needed, Neighborhood Collectors were
selected over Local Service Streets, whenever possible. The intent behind this
selection process was to establish a Major Emergency Response Street network where
emergency vehicles could make the longer legs of their trips on relatively higher speed
streets, reserving the shorter legs of their trips for more local streets where speeds
would be lower. This resulted in an approximately half -mile spacing between Major
Emergency Response Streets.
Other considerations in developing the network were connecting all existing fire stations
to Major Emergency Response Streets and avoiding streets whose topographic
conditions would result in emergency vehicle response delays. All streets that were not
selected as Major Emergency Response Streets were designated as Minor Emergency
Response Streets.
Emergency Response Streets Classification Implementation
The CAC made several recommendations regarding the implementation of the new
classification. They recommended that:
Streets rendered ineligible for traffic slowing devices by their designation as
Major Emergency Response Streets should be given higher priority for non -
engineered solutions to problems of excessive speed, i.e., education and
targeted traffic enforcement, than streets eligible for traffic slowing devices.
The five street segments that have been identified as Major Emergency
Response Streets that currently have traffic slowing devices will retain the
slowing devices on these streets. However, these streets will not be eligible for
additional traffic slowing devices in the future.
The Traffic Calming Program, the Fire Bureau, and the Police Bureau will
continue to cooperatively address problems of excessive speeds and volumes on
residential streets. This will include, but not be limited to, the evaluation of all
2 S"
new devices intended to slow general traffic to determine their impact on
emergency response providers and the development of cooperative educational
programs.
Additional Recommendations Made by the Citizens Advisory Committee
Aside from the recommendations made regarding implementation of the Emergency
Response Streets Classification, the study's CAC made the following additional
recommendations:
The City should continue to explore and test new technologies and devices to
calm traffic on neighborhood streets that will not delay emergency vehicle
response time.
The City should recognize that other factors affect response time besides traffic
slowing devices. The City should include the factors listed below in a holistic
approach to solving speeding problems:
Enforcement: Support traffic enforcement efforts to reduce
speeding on neighborhood streets, particularly on those streets no
longer eligible for traffic slowing devices.
Education: Promote education for all age groups which fosters
responsible driving behaviors. Education measures should be
encouraged particularly In areas where streets have become
ineligible for traffic stowing devices.
Work with community groups to bring traffic safety issues to
the neighborhood level.
Help create a non-profit organization to carry out and
coordinate education efforts on traffic safety.
Explore ISTEA funding for education projects related to
traffic safety.
Fire Station Siting: Be strategic in locating future fire stations, i.e.,
fire stations should be located at the intersection of two Major
Emergency Response Streets whenever possible.
Transportation Effidency: Support projects which improve the
overall movement of traffic citywide, provided it does not conflict
with other overriding policies.
Concilmdon
Finding a balance between the need to slow traffic on residential streets to increase
neighborhood safety and livability, and the need to provide prompt emergency services
is not easy. But it can be done. It takes a willingness on the part of all the service
providers involved to understand and appreciate the various services provided and the
constraints under which the provider works, an openness to change, and a commitment
26
to finding a balanced solution. It may also be illuminating to see what the citizens on
the CAC identified as their key challenges in dealing with this issue. These challenges
were:
Understanding the big picture.
Becoming educated about both bureaus and their priorities.
Dealing with the tradeoffs inherent in balancing two "goods," two aspects of
public safety.
Reaching an understanding of policy and working at the policy level.
Sticking to the process, as we worked to reach consensus.
In addition, the CAC felt that a key element in the process used to resolve this issue
was the development of "Criteria for a Good Solution." These criteria provided the
committee with benchmarks against which they could measure their recommendation
as it developed.
The success of this process goes well beyond the development of the Emergency
Response Classification. It has given City Council a successful model to use resolve
these types of conflicts between bureaus. However, perhaps the most important
success of this process has been the forging of relationships between the bureaus that
did not exist prior to this effort.
Crysttal Atkins is a project manager in the Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Traffic
Management. Traffic Cakning Program and served as lead technical staff to the
Emergency Response Classification study. She is a member of ITE.
Ed Wilson is the Division Chief, Emergency Operations for the Portland, Oregon,
Bureau of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services and served as lead technical staff to
the Emergency Response Classification study.
21
Page
The Influence of Traffic Calming Devices
on Fire Vehicle Travel Times
January 1996
Portland Bureau of Fire, Rescue and Traffic Calming Section Bureau of
Emergency Service Traffic Management
55 SW Ash Street I) Portland Office of Transportation
Portland, OR 97204
1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Room 730
Portland, OR 97204
INTRODUCTION
Traffic calming devices are used on Portland's neighborhood streets when traffic conditions are out of
character with their adjacent residential, institutional, and recreational land uses. Calming devices are
used to slow vehicle speeds; to encourage the use of more appropriate streets for through trips; and to
enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit safety. The devices have proven to be effective without
significantly impacting convenience, mobility, and travel time for drivers. At the same time certain
devices affect the speed of various fire vehicles and may increase overall response times.
During the Fall of 1995 the City's Fire Bureau and Bureau of Traffic Management conducted a
thorough data collection effort to help quantify the relationship between three types of traffic calming
devices and fire vehicle travel times. Different types of fire vehicles were driven on streets calmed
with traffic circles, 22 -foot speed bumps, and 14 -foot speed bumps. Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the
three devices. Table 1 lists basic information about the types of fire vehicles used in this study.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this paper is to present how speed bumps and traffic circles affect fire vehicle travel
times. This paper describes how the data was collected and analyzed, presents the findings, and goes
on to recommend additional areas in need of research.
RESEARCH METHOD
The testing considered four variables that influence the speed at which a fire vehicle can be negotiated
around traffic circles or across speed bumps. The variables tested are: the driver, the type of fire
vehicle, the desirable vehicle speed, and the types of calming devices.
The data collection effort involved six fire vehicles of varying characteristics. Test runs were
conducted on a total of six streets. Two streets had 22 -foot speed bumps. Two streets had 14 -foot
speed bumps, and two had traffic circles. A total of 36 different drivers participated in the testing. The
total number of test runs on each street was four per vehicle, or 24 runs per street.
Each test run was video taped. The camera recorded the vehicle speeds that were detected and
displayed by a radar gun. The time of day, to the nearest second, was superimposed on the recording.
http://www.tms.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Managementltrafficcalming/Emergencylfirerpt.htm 3/22/01
18
Table 1. Fire Vehicle Specifications
The speed and time information for each test run was transcribed from the video tapes to a
spreadsheet. The information for each run was used to calculate the distance traveled after each
second as well as the vehicle's distance from the starting line after each second of the run.
For various combinations of the four variables, the time needed to travel a length of street that had no
calming device was compared to the time needed to travel the same length with a calming device. The
time and impact distance required to decelerate from a desirable response speed, negotiate the calming
device, and accelerate back to the original speed was determined from the data. The time required to
travel the same impact distance without a calming device to influence the desirable response speed
was calculated. The difference between the two travel times equals the delay associated with the
calming device. This delay -per -device was calculated for all six vehicles as they negotiated every
calming device on the six test streets. Delays -per -device were calculated for desirable response speeds
of 25, 30, 35, and 40 mph.
FINDINGS
The results of the City's research are presented in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4. Depending on the
type of fire vehicle and the desirable response speed, the three devices were found to create a range of
delays for each device as follows:
14 -foot bumps: 1.0 to 9.4 seconds of delay per bump
22 -foot bumps: 0.0 to 9.2 seconds of delay per bump
Traffic circles: 1.3 to 10.7 seconds of delay per circle
The drivers' performances did not appear to significantly influence the results. Their choices of
deceleration and acceleration rates as well as their choices of minimum speeds near the devices were
very consistent.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper was to show how speed bumps and traffic circles used in Portland affect fire
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Managementltrafficcalming/Emergencylfirerpt.htm 3/22/01
Z9
0-40 mph
Overall Weight
Horse-
power
Wt./HP
Ratio
Accel.
Time
Vehicle Length Wheelbase lbs) HP) lbs/HP) sec)
Engine 18 29' 10" 15'5" 34,860IF 185 188 19
Rescue 41 21' 11' 6" na 185 na 12
Squad 1 27' 14'6" IL23,170 275 84 17
Truck 1 48' 21'0" 53,000 450 IL 118 20
Truck 4 57' 13' 0" 53,960 450 120 22
Truck 41 37'6" 16' 9" 42,100 350 120j 27
The speed and time information for each test run was transcribed from the video tapes to a
spreadsheet. The information for each run was used to calculate the distance traveled after each
second as well as the vehicle's distance from the starting line after each second of the run.
For various combinations of the four variables, the time needed to travel a length of street that had no
calming device was compared to the time needed to travel the same length with a calming device. The
time and impact distance required to decelerate from a desirable response speed, negotiate the calming
device, and accelerate back to the original speed was determined from the data. The time required to
travel the same impact distance without a calming device to influence the desirable response speed
was calculated. The difference between the two travel times equals the delay associated with the
calming device. This delay -per -device was calculated for all six vehicles as they negotiated every
calming device on the six test streets. Delays -per -device were calculated for desirable response speeds
of 25, 30, 35, and 40 mph.
FINDINGS
The results of the City's research are presented in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4. Depending on the
type of fire vehicle and the desirable response speed, the three devices were found to create a range of
delays for each device as follows:
14 -foot bumps: 1.0 to 9.4 seconds of delay per bump
22 -foot bumps: 0.0 to 9.2 seconds of delay per bump
Traffic circles: 1.3 to 10.7 seconds of delay per circle
The drivers' performances did not appear to significantly influence the results. Their choices of
deceleration and acceleration rates as well as their choices of minimum speeds near the devices were
very consistent.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper was to show how speed bumps and traffic circles used in Portland affect fire
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Managementltrafficcalming/Emergencylfirerpt.htm 3/22/01
Z9
f Vinaiiu, vic;un i iainu ,_amung - i ne innuence of i raII1c ,aiming t)evices on rue Vena.. Page 3 of3
vehicle travel times. The results provide quantitative data that can be used in the determination of the
impacts of one or more traffic calming devices on fire response times along a given emergency
response route. Additional information is necessary in order to make a complete assessment of these
impacts. This includes: 1) the types of fire vehicles responding to emergencies; 2) the desirable and
appropriate speed of fire vehicles at each of the calming devices located along the response route; 3)
the geographical area that will be affected by any increase in delay to response times; and 4) the use of
this route by fire vehicles given the likely demand for emergency services and the availability of good
alternative routes.
A full assessment of the impacts on response times for a given set of traffic calming devices needs to
be balanced with the benefits of traffic calming on reducing speeding problems and enhancing public
safety and livability along neighborhood streets. This paper provides the initial quantitative data that is
necessary to begin to weigh the pros and cons of traffic calming.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The City needs to pursue full assessments of the impacts of specific traffic calming projects, either
planned or existing projects, on emergency vehicle responses. This assessment needs to consider all
the necessary information as summarized above. The results of this assessment then needs to be
compared to the benefits of the traffic calming project, especially the benefits to public safety.
Due to the City's desire to provide both fast response for emergency services and slower overall traffic
speeds on neighborhood streets, a public process should be undertaken to address the trade-offs
between these two community values and to provide policy direction for implementing traffic calming
on a city-wide basis. This should be done by revising the Transportation Element to include a
classification for emergency response routes.
Factors that may need to be considered in addressing any trade-offs are options to mitigate impacts on
fire vehicle response times. These options include the use of traffic signal preemption devices, the
locating of new fire stations, fire vehicle modifications to minimize weight -to -horsepower ratios,
securing and cushioning certain pieces of equipment, and improving vehicle suspensions.
Bach
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Managementltrafficcalming/Emergencylfireipt.htm 3/22/01
30
Bureau of Traffic Management
Portland Office of Transportation
City of Portland, Oregon
January 1996
Table 2: Typical Impacts of 14 -foot Speed Bumps on Emergency Vehicles
Lowest Speed: This is the lowest speed a vehicle travels when crossing a 14 -foot speed bump.
Desirable Speed: This is the speed a driver might wish to travel if there were no speed bumps.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/Emergencylfirel4.htm 3/22/01
31
Lowest Desirable Travel Time Impact
Vehicle
Speed
mph)
Speed
mph)e
Delay
seconds)
Distance
feet)
Engine 18 13 25 2.3 236
13 30 3.7 399
13 35 5.2 581
13 40 7.7 814
Rescue 41 17 25 1.0 147
17 30 1.7 269
17 35 2.9 483
17 40 4.9 628
S uad 1 12 25 2.7
12 30 4.1 436
12 35 5.9 — 611
12 40 8.3 852
Truck 1 11 25 3.4 269
11 30 4.9 11 455
11 35 6.6 646
11 40 1 9.4 931
Truck 4 12 25 3.4 — 315
12 30 4.9 485
12 35 6.8 732
12 40 j 9.1 1053
Truck 41 12 25 3.5 327
12 30 4.7 472
12 35 6.6 762
12 40 8.6 1152
Lowest Speed: This is the lowest speed a vehicle travels when crossing a 14 -foot speed bump.
Desirable Speed: This is the speed a driver might wish to travel if there were no speed bumps.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/Emergencylfirel4.htm 3/22/01
31
Travel Time Delay: This is the additional time required to travel to a destination due to a 14 -foot
speed bump's influence.
Impact Distance: This is the length of street where a given vehicle cannot be driven at the desired
speed because of the speed bump's influence.
Backj
http://www.trans.ci.portland.oi.usITraffic_ManagementITrafficCalming/Emergency/firel4.htm 3/22/01
3Z
Bureau of Traffic Management
Portland Office of Transportation
City of Portland, Oregon
January 1996
Table 3: Typical Impacts of 22 -foot Speed Bumps on Emergency Vehicles
Vehicle
Lowest
Speed
mph)
Desirable
Speed
mph)
Travel Time
Delay
seconds)
Impact
Distance
feet)
Engine 18 21 25 0.8 136
21 30 1.7 323
21 35 3.0 505
21 40 5.0 752
Rescue 41 34 25 0.0 0
34 30 0.0 0
34 35 0.3 118—
34 40 1.5 263
Squad_1 24 25 11 0.4 80
24 j 30 1.0 214
24 35 2.1 433
24 40 3.4 708
Truck 1 22 25 0.6 137
22 30 1.4 320
22 35 3.0 600
22 j 40 4.9 885
Truck 4 16 25 1.8 254
16 30 3.4 449
16 j 35 5.9 674
71 16 j 40 7.7 1039
Truck 4171 14 25 11 3.0 316
14 30 4.8 622
14 j 35 7.2 912
71 14 40 9.2 1322
Lowest Speed: This is the lowest speed a vehicle travels when crossing a 22 -foot speed bump.
Desirable Speed: This is the speed a driver might wish to travel if there were no speed bumps.
Travel Time Delay: This is the additional time required to travel to a destination due to a 22 -foot
http://www.trans.ci.portiand.or.us/Traffic_ManagementITrafficCalming/Emergencylfire22.htm 3/22/01
33
p Impact on Emergency Vehicles Page 2 of 2
speed bump's influence.
Impact Distance: This is the length of street where a given vehicle cannot be driven at a given
desirable speed because of the speed bump's influence.
Back]
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_ManagementITrafficCalming/Emergencylfire22.htm 3/22/01
39
Page I of 2
Bureau of Traffic Management
Portland Office of Transportation
City of Portland, Oregon
January 1996
Table 4: Typical Impacts of Traffic Circles on Emergency Vehicles
Vehicle
Lowest
Speed
mph)
Desirable
Speed
mph)
Travel Time
Delay
seconds)
Impact
Distance
feet)
Engine 18 14
14
14
25 2.8 261
30
35
4.3 489
671
Rescue 41
14
16
16
16
16
40
25
30
35
40
8.5 814
1.3 170
2.3 301
3.1— 467
5.1 612
Squad 1 17 25 1.2 172
17
17
17
30
35
40
2.3
3.7
5.3
326
501
776
Truck 1 10 25 4.8 319
10 30 6.4 524
10 35 8.4 749
10 40 10.7 1034
Truck 4 11 25 4.3 322
11 30 6.2 549
11 35 8.1 799
11 40 10.3 1139
Truck 41 11
11
25 3.9 338
30 5.2 555
11 35 7.3 845
11 40 I — 9.2 1255
Lowest Speed: This is the lowest speed a vehicle travels when navigating around a traffic circle.
Desirable Speed: This is the speed a driver might wish to travel if there were no traffic circles.
Travel Time Delay: This is the additional time required to travel to a destination due to a traffic
http://www.trans.ci.portiand.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/Emerg.../Firecircle.ht 3/22/01
3,5'
Portland, Uregon 1 rattic Calming Program Traffic Circle Impact on Emergency Vehicles Page 2 of 2
circle's influence.
Impact Distance: This is the length of street where a given vehicle cannot be driven at the desired
speed because of the traffic circle's influence.
Back]
http://www.tram.ci.portiand.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/Emerg.../Firecircle.ht 3/22/01
36
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE STUDY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Office of Transportation/Fire Bureau
Table of Contents
Office of Transportation
DRAFT February 10, 1998
City of Portland, Oregon
Prepared by
City of Portland
Office of Transportation
Bureau of Fire, Rescue and Emergency
Services
Charlie Hales, Commissioner -in -Charge Gretchen Kafoury, Commissioner -in
Victor F. Rhodes, Director, Office of Transportation Charge
Steve Dotterrer, Chief Transportation Planner Robert Wall, Chief, Bureau of Fire, Rescue
and Emergency Services
Citizen Advisory Committee
Matthew Aho, Hollywood Neighborhood (formerly of Bridlemile)
Mary Devlin, Laurelhurst Neighborhood
Ron Hernandez, Friends of Cathedral Park
Rebecca Robbins, Sunnyside Neighborhood
Gregg Swanson, Foster -Powell Neighborhood
Chris Wrench, Northwest District Association
Jennifer Young, Parkrose Neighborhood
Technical Advisory Committee
Office of Transportation
Monique Wahba, Project Manager
John Gillam, Project Supervisor
Cece Noel, Public Involvement
Traffic Calming Program
Crysttal Atkins, Project Manager
Ellis McCoy, Program Manager
Bureau of Fire, Rescue and Emergency
Services
Ed Wilson, Division Chief
Patty Rueter, Planning Specialist
District 3 Battalion Chief Traffic Liaisons
Grant Coffey
Joe Wallace
Dave Disciascio
http://www.trans.c i.portland. or. us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht
37
3/22/01
Portland, Oregon Traffic Calming Program Draft Emergency Response Route Report
Technical Staff
Mary Edin
Samy Fouts
Bob Robison
O Introduction
O Citizen Advisory Committee
O Recommendations for Changes to the
Transportation_ _Element
O Recommendations for Enforcement
Page 2of10
O Appendices
O A. . Emergency_ Response Classification _Stu _dy
Work Plan
O B. _Criteria for a Good Solution
O C. Citizen Advisory Committee
Recommendations
O D. Notice of Open Houses
O E. Public Comments (To be inserted after the
public open houses)
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
STUDY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The City of Portland is committed to providing a transportation system that both protects the safety
and livability of residential neighborhoods and responds to emergency service needs. The
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan includes transportation policies and street
classifications designed to carry out these and other transportation objectives.
The policies of the Transportation Element are intended to help carry out the City's vision of a
transportation system that provides choice; one where walking, bicycling and taking transit are viable
options to driving. The street classifications of the Transportation Element are known as the Arterial
Streets Classifications and Policies (ASCP). They work to achieve policy goals by describing the
levels of automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck traffic appropriate for each street. The
ASCP establishes a clear hierarchy of traffic corridors designating facilities for trips of different
speed, volume, and length. Such a system would ideally discourage higher speed through traffic from
using local neighborhood streets, and local traffic from using major arterials. This would add not only
to the overall efficiency of the system, but to the livability of city neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, not all local neighborhood streets are used as classified. Many experience excessive
traffic speeds and volumes. In response to resident complaints, the City initiated the Traffic Calming
Program to address these issues on Local Service Streets. The program was later expanded to include
Neighborhood Collectors that were at least 75 percent residential. The program uses education,
enforcement, and engineering to address these problems.
The engineering component of the Traffic Calming Program's approach has become problematic to
emergency service providers, particularly on Neighborhood Collectors since these streets often serve
as emergency response routes. Of specific concern are two types of slowing devices used by the
Traffic Calming Program: speed bumps and traffic circles. While these devices have the desired effect
of slowing traffic on residential streets, they also have the unintended effect of delaying emergency
response vehicles.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/FrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
38
In response to the high demand for traffic calming projects and the potential for delay in emergency
response delivery, City Council took action to resolve this conflict. In April 1996 Council directed the
Office of Transportation and the Fire Bureau to resolve this problem through a policy approach. Staff
was directed to develop a new emergency response policy and street classification system. While
traffic slowing devices are not the only factors affecting emergency response time (other factors
include fire station locations, congestion levels, and unlawful driving behavior), fifteen traffic calming
projects were put on hold awaiting completion of this study.
Currently, there is no classification for emergency response routes in the Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Element addresses the need for emergency vehicle
access in describing how designated traffic streets should function. To date, emergency service
providers have commented on the potential impacts of traffic calming projects on a case-by-case basis
following the guidelines of the Implementation Section of the Transportation Element.
Having policy language on emergency response, accompanied by an emergency response
classification system is beneficial for several reasons.
First, it balances prompt emergency response with slowing traffic on residential streets.
Second, it provides the City and its residents with clarity and certainty regarding streets' eligibility for
traffic slowing devices. An immediate benefit is in allowing traffic slowing projects currently on hold
to go forward, be modified, or be dropped.
Third, it ensures a basic network of emergency response streets. This network can be used to help
route response vehicles in an emergency and to help the City site future fire stations.
Fourth, it will be incorporated into the Transportation Element. This allows emergency response needs
to be considered with other modal needs when changes to a street are considered.
This resolution will direct the Office of Transportation and the Fire Bureau to use these new policies
to determine a street's eligibility for traffic slowing devices, to help plan capital improvements and site
future fire stations, and to guide the routing of emergency response vehicles. These policies will
eventually be incorporated into the Transportation System Plan and adopted by ordinance.
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
To assist in this study, Commissioners Hales and Kafoury appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee
CAC) consisting of seven members, representing the seven transportation districts of the city.
Members were selected based on their interest in the study, their experience and active participation
on City committees, and their ability to see all sides of the issues.
The role of the CAC was to advise the study's technical advisory committee (TAC) in developing an
emergency response policy and street classification system for incorporation into the Transportation
Element. The technical advisory committee consisted of staff from the Traffic Calming Program, the
Fire Bureau, and Transportation Planning. The TAC sought advice in the following areas:
policy language to address the need for prompt emergency response,
criteria for selecting emergency response streets,
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
39
Portland, Oregon Traffic Calming Program Draft Emergency Response Route Report Page 4 of 10
emergency response street classification descriptions, and
enforcement recommendations.
The Committee met with the TAC biweekly beginning in August 1997 for approximately seven
months. (The CAC's work plan can be found in Appendix A.) A neutral facilitator was hired to
moderate citizen advisory committee meetings. The first CAC meetings focused on reviewing study
goals, clarifying the roles of CAC members and staff, and establishing ground rules.
The Committee identified key study issues and developed "criteria for a good solution" (see Appendix
B). These criteria were used to evaluate the quality of the final recommendation to City Council. The
Committee advised staff on proposed policy language, emergency response classification descriptions,
criteria for selecting Major Emergency Response Streets, and the draft emergency response street map.
Aside from the recommendations in this report, the CAC developed additional recommendations for
City Council which can be found in Appendix C.
The Committee played a leading role in developing the public review process for this study. CAC
members worked with technical advisory committee members in staffing all public open houses and
responding to public feedback.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Staff recommends the following changes be incorporated into the Transportation Element. Until
adoption by ordinance as part of the Transportation System Plan process, these policies,
classifications, and definitions will be used by the affected bureaus as operating guidelines in
implementing traffic calming projects. Findings will be developed as part of the Transportation
System Plan.
a new emergency response policy,
a revised traffic calming policy,
a new emergency response classification description,
a new emergency response street map,
a revised implementation section on emergency response
a new definition of "emergency response vehicles"
a new definition of "opticom"
a new definition of "traffic calming"
a new definition of "traffic slowing devices"
Emergency Response Policy
Policy 6.?? Emergency Response
Provide a network of emergency response streets that facilitates prompt emergency response. The
emergency response classification system shall be used to determine whether traffic slowing devices
can be employed, to guide the routing of emergency response vehicles, and to help site future fire
stations.
Explanation: This policy recognizes the transportation system's role in facilitating prompt emergency
response. It also defines how the emergency response classification system will be used. This policy
will be assigned a Transportation Element number as part of the adoption of the Transportation
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_ManagementlTrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
Li0
rontana, Uregon 1 rattic Calming Program Draft Emergency Response Route Report Page 5 of 10
System Plan.
Traffic Calming Policy
Additions are shown in underline and deletions are shown with a strike thteug! .
Policy 6.5Managemen Traffic
Calming
Manage traffic on Neighborhood Collectors and Local Service Streets according to the hierarchy
established in Ehapter3 a the Transportation Element, Arterial Streets Classifications and Policies,
and the land uses they serve. Measures taken by the Bureau of Traffic Management, within the erife ri
program to manage traffic on
Neighborhood Collectors and Local Service Streets; should encourage nonlocal traffic to use streets
with higher traffic classifications artd. Measures taken on Local Service Streets should not
siglri€ieently divert traffic to other nearby streets of the same or !owe classification. Measures should
not be taken on Neiehborhood Collectors that result in diversion of traffic to streets of lower
classification.
Explanation: This revised policy language reflects the recent consolidation of the Collector Recovery
and Local Service Street Traffic Management Programs into the Traffic Calming Program. It also
clarifies that measures taken on Local Service Streets should not divert traffic to other nearby streets
of the same classification and measures should not be taken on Neighborhood Collectors that result
in diversion to Local Service Streets.
Emergency Response Street Classification Descriptions
EMERGENCY RESPONSE STREETS
Major Emergency Response Streets
Functional Purpose
Major Emergency Response Streets are intended to serve primarily the longer, most direct legs of
emergency response trips.
Design Treatment and Operating Characteristics
Design treatments on Major Emergency Response Streets should enhance mobility for emergency
response vehicles by employing preferential treatments such as opticom.
Major Emergency Response Routes are not eligible for traffic slowing devices.
Minor Emergency Response Streets
Functional Purpose
Minor Emergency Response Streets are intended to serve primarily the shorter legs of emergency
response trips.
All streets not classified as Major Emergency Response Streets are classified as Minor Emergency
Response Streets.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
HI
Portland, Oregon Traffic Calming Program Draft Emergency Response Route Report Page 6 of 10
Design Treatment and Operating Characteristics
Minor Emergency Response Streets are designed and operated to provide access to individual
properties.
Minor Emergency Response Streets are eligible for traffic slowing devices
Explanation: This classification system describes how emergency response streets should function,
specifies appropriate design treatments to facilitate prompt emergency response, and indicates which
streets are eligible for traffic slowing devices and which are not.
Emergency Response Street Classification Map
Exhibit B is a map which identifies Major and Minor Emergency Response Streets. Major Emergency
Response Streets were selected based the following considerations:
Eligibility of streets for traffic slowing devices.
Spacing/connectivity.
Traffic classifications.
Location of fire stations.
Topography.
Explanation: Under current policy, District Collectors and higher arterials are ineligible for traffic
slowing devices and were therefore automatically designated as Major Emergency Response Streets.
Neighborhood Collectors which are not at least 75 percent residential are also ineligible for traffic
slowing devices. These collectors were designated as Major Emergency Response Streets where staff
agreed that the higher arterial network did not provide adequate coverage. In cases where additional
Major Emergency Response Streets were needed, Neighborhood Collectors were selected over Local
Service Streets, whenever possible. The intent behind this selection process was to establish a Major
Emergency Response Street network where emergency vehicles could make the longer legs of their
trips on relatively higher speed streets reserving the shorter legs of their trips for more local streets
where speeds would be lower. This resulted in an approximate half -mile spacing between Major
Emergency Response Streets.
Other considerations in developing the network were connecting all existing fire stations to Major
Emergency Response Streets and avoiding streets whose topographic conditions would result in
emergency vehicle response delays. All streets that were not selected as Major Emergency Response
Streets were designated as Minor Emergency Response Streets.
New Glossary Definitions
The following are proposed as new glossary definitions.
Emergency Response Vehicles
Vehicles employed in responding to emergencies. Examples of emergency response vehicles
include fire apparatus, ambulances, and police cars.
Opticom
A signal preemption system for emergency response vehicles.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
42
Portland, Uregon 1 rattic Calming Program Draft Emergency Response Route Report Page 7 of 10
Explanation: These terms are used in the new emergency response classification descriptions
and are therefore defined for general understanding.
Traffic Calming
Roadway design strategies to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes. Traffic calming measures
include, but are not limited to, traffic slowing devices. Examples of other traffic calming
measures are traffic diverters, curb extensions, and medians.
Traffic Slowing Devices
Devices employed by the Traffic Calming Program that slow emergency response vehicles as
well as general traffic. The only currently used devices considered traffic slowing devices are
speed bumps and traffic circles.
Explanation: These definitions differentiate between traffic calming and traffic slowing devices.
The former relates to the comprehensive list of traffic calming devices. The latter refers
specifically to those devices that delay emergency response vehicles.
Emergency Response Implementation
Below is staffs recommendation to replace the portion of the existing implementation section B(2) of
the Transportation Element that deals with emergency response. Additions are shown in underline and
deletions with a strike threttgh.
Streets rendered ineligible for traffic slowing devices by their designation as Major
Emergency Response Streets should beivg en higher priority for nonengineered solutions
to problems of excessive speed i.e. education and targeted traffic enforcement than
streets eligible for traffic slowing devices
Three street segments have been identified as Major Emergency Response Streets that
currently have traffic slowing devices These street segments are: NE 15th between
Broadway and Prescott,• SW Sunset between Capitol and Dosch; and SW Shattuck,
between Hamilton and Thomas. The Fire Bureau and the Office of Transportation agree
to retain the slowing devices on these streets. However, these streets will not be eligible
for additional traffic slowing devices in the future.
The Traffic Calming Program, the Fire Bureau, and the Police Bureau will continue to
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
4,3
WN
Streets rendered ineligible for traffic slowing devices by their designation as Major
Emergency Response Streets should beivg en higher priority for nonengineered solutions
to problems of excessive speed i.e. education and targeted traffic enforcement than
streets eligible for traffic slowing devices
Three street segments have been identified as Major Emergency Response Streets that
currently have traffic slowing devices These street segments are: NE 15th between
Broadway and Prescott,• SW Sunset between Capitol and Dosch; and SW Shattuck,
between Hamilton and Thomas. The Fire Bureau and the Office of Transportation agree
to retain the slowing devices on these streets. However, these streets will not be eligible
for additional traffic slowing devices in the future.
The Traffic Calming Program, the Fire Bureau, and the Police Bureau will continue to
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
4,3
Portland, Oregon Traffic Calming Program Draft Emergency Response Route Report Page 8 of 10
cooperatively address problems of excessive speeds and volumes on residential streets.
This will include but not be limited to, the evaluation of all new traffic slowing devices
to determine their impact on emer ency response providers and the development of
cooperative educational programs.
Explanation: These revisions provide direction regarding the treatment of streets
rendered ineligible for traffic slowing devices, the treatment of streets designated as
Major Emergency Response Streets with existing traffic slowing devices, and the role of
various bureaus in traffic calming project development and education.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT
In addition to the transportation recommendations above which will be implemented through the
Transportation Element, below are additional recommendations for police enforcement of speeding on
neighborhood streets.
Assign streets no longer eligible for traffic slowing devices higher priority for increased
enforcement and education measures.
Have the Police Bureau and the Bureau of Traffic Management work cooperatively on the
problem of speeding on neighborhood streets.
Explanation: Designation of Major and Minor Emergency Response Streets was a joint
effort between the Transportation and Fire Bureaus considering first, policy direction
and second, operational and programmatic needs. The classification designations offer
clarity and certainty to both bureaus as well as the public about streets' eligibilityfor
traffic slowing devices.
However, because of the designation of Major Emergency Response Streets, several
streets will lose their current eligibilityfor traffic slowing devices. Staff recommends the
City address this issue by assigning affected streets higher priorityfor increased
enforcement and education measures. Staff also recommends that the Police Bureau and
the Bureau of Traffic Management work cooperatively on the problem of speeding on
neighborhood streets.
To See Map of Emergency Response Routes Click Here ( 30 min? load time)
Draft List of Primary Response Streets
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Emergency Response Classification Study Work Plan
Meeting Date & Meeting Goals
Location
PortlandM Introduce CAC to staff and to one another. Review goals of the study, role of
6 CAC members and staff, final product, work plan, and timeline.
11B2:8/27, Portland Review conflict resolution guidance to establish ground rules. Panel
Idg, 746 presentation by staff on transportation policy, traffic calming, and emergency
http://www.t=s.ci.port]and.or.us/Traffic_M nagement/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
4
roruanu, uregon i rainc Maiming Frograrn Dratt Emergency Response Route Report Page 9 of 10
Appendix B: Criteria for a Good Solution
We'll know we have a good Emergency Response Classification System if..
The classification system allows for prompt emergency response while protecting residential
streets from excessive speeds and volumes.
The classification system is flexible enough to respond to changes over time, e.g. changes in
density, technology, etc.
The classification system is easily explained, defensible and usable.
The classification system provides a hierarchy of emergency response routes.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
4,5'
operations to inform CAC decisions.
FieldTrip:/3, Fire Give CAC first hand exposure to emergency response and traffic calmingissues.
3: 9/10, Portland Debrief field trip to identify study issues.
Bldg, 746
4: 9/24, Mt Scott Identify criteria for a good solution. Focus on the limited area of disagreement
Community Center between the fire bureau and the traffic calming program: present CAC with a
preliminary emergency response classification scheme; present a map showing
city streets currently ineligible for traffic slowing. Establish visitor guidelines.
Finalize article for neighborhood newsletters.
5: 10/8, Fire E—] xplain how policy translates into implementation. Suggest preliminary policyTrainingCenterlanguage. Develop criteria for a good solution statements.
6: 10/22, WAgree on number of policies to deal with the issue. Explain traffic calmingBaptistSeminaryexercise. Discuss principles for emergency response streets.
7: 11/5, Debrief traffic calming exercise. Provide information about why the city doesMultnomahCentertrafficcalming. Finalize criteria statements.
8: 11/19, Agee on principles for emergency response classifications. Show map ofApplegateSchool, proposed emergency response classifications, highlighting problem streets.
7650 N Commercial Establish criteria for allowing slowing devices on neighborhood emergency
response routes. Discuss public review process. Distribute proposed policy
language.
9: 12/10, Portland Refine emergency response map and decide upon two emergency response
Bldg, 746 classifications or three. Discuss proposed policy language.
10: 1/7, Portland Review public outreach plan. Review draft report outline. Discuss bin items for
Bldg, 746 report appendix.
11: 1/21, PortlandDiscussi enforcement measures with Police. Discuss draft report to Council.
Bldg, 746
r12: 2/4, Portland Finalize draft report prior to open houses. Review draft displays and materials
Bldg, 746 for open houses. Open house preparatory training.
2/10 —] Planning Commission briefing.
2/18, 2/21, 2/25 Public open houses.
13: 3/4, Portland Debrief open houses. Consider public comments for incorporation in report.
Bldg, 746
1 City Council Hearing
Appendix B: Criteria for a Good Solution
We'll know we have a good Emergency Response Classification System if..
The classification system allows for prompt emergency response while protecting residential
streets from excessive speeds and volumes.
The classification system is flexible enough to respond to changes over time, e.g. changes in
density, technology, etc.
The classification system is easily explained, defensible and usable.
The classification system provides a hierarchy of emergency response routes.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
4,5'
Portland, Oregon 1 rathc Calming Program Draft Emergency Response Route Report Page 10 of 10
The classification system can be used for future system planning, e.g. for routing fire vehicles in
an emergency, for siting future fire stations, for selecting Traffic Calming projects, for using
signal preemption along selected emergency response corridors.
The classification system meets the liability concerns of both the Fire Bureau and the Traffic
Calming Program by providing an objective decision making process.
The classification system is supportive of Region 2040 land use growth concepts.
Appendix C: Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations
Aside from the recommendations made in the body of this report, the study's Citizen Advisory
Committee would like to make the following additional recommendations.
Continue to explore and test new technologies and devices to calm traffic on neighborhood
streets that will not delay emergency vehicle response time.
Recognize that other factors affect response time besides traffic slowing devices. Include these
factors, listed below, in a holistic approach to solving speeding problems in the city:
o Enforcement: Support traffic enforcement efforts to reduce speeding on neighborhood
streets, particularly on those streets no longer eligible for traffic slowing devices.
o Education: Promote education for all age groups which fosters responsible driving
behaviors. Education measures should be encouraged particularly in areas where streets
have become ineligible for traffic slowing devices.
Work with community groups to bring traffic safety issues to the neighborhood
level.
Help create a non-profit organization to carry out and coordinate education efforts
on traffic safety.
Explore ISTEA funding for education projects related to traffic safety.
o Fire Station Siting: Be strategic in locating future fire stations, i.e. fire stations should be
located at the intersection of two Major Emergency Response Streets, whenever possible.
o Transportation Efficiency: Support projects which improve the overall movement of
traffic citywide provided it does not conflict with other overriding policies.
Appendix D: Notice of Open Houses
Appendix E: Public Comments (To be inserted after the public open houses)
Draft List of Emergency Response Route Streets
HOMES Search) How it works) Traffic Calmi11&Deyic_e_s1 Portland Project Evaluationsl Traffic
Calming and the Lawl Current and Future Projects) New Research) Studies and Reports) Pr__ oram
Info and_St_affl,
mComents _Questions)
Help us improve our site; Send suggestions to Scott. Thank you.
Legal Search
4C
http://www.trans.ci.Portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/TrafficCalming/E.../ERreportdraft.ht 3/22/01
PUBUC WORKS
BIDS AND CONTRACTS REFUSE AND RECYCLING SEWERS SIDEWALKSSTREETSSTORMWATERTRAFFICUTILITIES
Pubic Works Ir fo "DRAFT"
oft &Codra`ts
Executive SummaryRetwe &ftcydbV
3., Sewers Evaluation of the Speed Hump Program
S in the City of BerkeleyStreets
Storm Water The City of Berkeley has been using speed humps to control vehicle speed
Trrlic on residential streets since 1990. There are currently 156 speed humps on
ub'ires 99 blocks in the City. From the start of the program, it was assumed that a full
Dowdo,ft evaluation of the effectiveness of speed humps would be performed. In
addition, the growing use of the speed humps has raised some concerns
about their impact on emergency services and disabled residents. In July of
1995, the City Council delayed any further speed hump installation until an
evaluation of the program could be completed, one that considers not only
speed hump effectiveness but also the full impact of the devices and
alternatives to them. This document serves as that evaluation. The findings of
the study and recommendations for a revised program are summarized
below.
Residents' Opinions. Berkeley residents in speed hump areas clearly
support the speed hump program. Of residents on streets with speed
humps, 57% support the installation of more humps and 25% had no
opinion. On streets without speed humps, 46% support the installation
of more humps and 23% had no opinion. Residents feel that speed
humps have generally been effective at reducing traffic speeds. They
feel that speed humps have had much less impact on traffic volume,
street noise and crime. Residents are concerned about the delay to
emergency vehicles, though only 33% feel that this is reason to
discontinue the program.
Impact on Traffic Speed. Studies in Berkeley and in other cities show
that speed humps are extremely effectiv2 at reducing traffic speeds,
particularly the highest speeds that are most troubling to residents.
Properly spaced speed humps reduce traffic speeds both at the humps
and between the humps, and speeds have not crept back up over time.
Impact on Traffic Volume. Studies done in Berkeley and other cities
indicate that speed humps generally decrease traffic volume on the
street where they are installed, and have the potential to divert a
significant amount of the traffic to other local streets. If a parallel local
street is equally convenient to through traffic, it is likely that it will
receive diverted traffic. Traffic diversion of this nature can have a
significant impact on surrounding residential streets.
Impact on Emergency Services. Speed humps can cause significant
delay to Fire Department vehicles, including ambulances. Records from
the Fire Department are not extensive enough to determine if speed
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/PW/traffic/execsunu-n.htmi
47
3/22/01
3peea riump rrogram - L%awation Page 2 of 5
humps have led to an increase in average response time. However,
tests show that fire vehicles driving on a typical block with speed humps
can experience a delay of up to 10 seconds per hump. Passing over
several of these blocks would add considerably to the average
response time goal of 4 minutes. Emergency vehicles that do not slow
down sufficiently at speed humps could suffer expensive damage to the
vehicle framing. Because of the delay they cause, speed humps can
increase the risk that residents will suffer from fire damage, injury or
even death. At this time, it is not possible to accurately estimate the
level of this additional risk. Speed humps have less impact on Police
Department operations.
Impact on Disabled Residents. Driving or riding over speed humps
can cause pain for residents with certain physical conditions. For most
of these residents, the problem can be minimized by driving very slowly
over the humps. However, some persons may still have problems
regardless of how slow they travel over speed humps. Riding over
speed humps in paratransit vehicles can be particularly problematic as
the drivers sometimes fail to slow down sufficiently. Speed humps in
Berkeley can vary slightly in shape and height. Disabled residents often
suffer most from this variability, as higher or steeper humps can cause
unexpected jostling and pain.
Impact on Crime. Two-thirds of speed humps in Berkeley were
installed as part of the Special Enforcement Area program in an effort to
reduce drug dealing, drive-by shootings and reckless driving. There is
little evidence that they have had an impact on these activities.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that speed humps have made a positive
impact in some cases, often in conjunction with other neighborhood
improvement measures. But conversations with Police Special
Enforcement Unit staff and some limited data suggest that speed
humps generally have no impact on the amount of criminal activity on a
street.
Impact on Noise. Speed humps will cause little or no change in noise
levels. While noise in the immediate vicinity of a speed hump may
increase slightly due to vehicle acceleration, scraping of pavement or
rattling cargo, overall noise levels will likely remain unchanged or
decrease.
Impact on Other City Services. Speed humps have had no adverse
impact on non -emergency city services such as garbage collection,
recycling or street cleaning.
Impact on Accidents and Safety. Traffic accidents involving
pedestrians and other vehicles are infrequent on local residential
streets, and therefore the impact of speed humps on pedestrian
accidents cannot be accurately quantified at this time. Speed humps
probably have little impact on overall accident rates. However, the real
benefit of speed humps comes from a perceived increase in safety and
liveability due to lower traffic speeds.
Impact on Bicyclists. Speed humps can be uncomfortable to some
bicyclists, particularly when the humps are abrupt or lack a smooth
interface with the street pavement. Providing a gap between the speed
hump and the curb can allow uninterrupted passage for bicyclists, but
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/PW/traffic/execsumm.html 3/22/01
may also encourage motorists to swerve toward the curb. Limited
evidence in Berkeley suggests that most cyclists do not mind speed
humps, especially if they reduce traffic speed and/or volume.
Alternatives to Speed Humps. Of the accepted traffic calming
measures used in the U.S. today, standard 12 -foot wide speed humps
remain the most effective device to reduce mid -block speeds without
blocking access. Other devices can be effective to a lesser degree, and
may be appropriate for some locations in Berkeley where standard
speed humps cannot be used. Varying the width and shape of speed
humps from the standard 12 -foot wide design appears to be the most
promising alternative. Specific traffic conditions or the needs of
emergency vehicles can be accommodated by using wider, flatter
speed humps. The 22 -foot wide speed humps, such as those installed
on Santa Fe Avenue in Berkeley, have proven to be effective at
reducing speeds in Berkeley and several other communities, including
Portland, OR, Howard County, MD and Seminole County, FL.
Chokers, chicanes and traffic circles have also been shown to reduce
speeds on residential streets, though not as much as speed humps.
These devices are substantially more expensive than speed humps, but
they do offer the opportunity for landscaping and neighborhood
beautification. Mid -block chokers should be considered for streets with
speeding problems where humps cannot be installed. Large, fully
landscaped traffic circles should also be considered on shorter blocks,
but they will have little or no impact on long blocks. Other devices,
including striping narrow traffic lanes, textured paving and stop signs,
are generally not effective at reducing mid -block speeds.
Recommendations. Based on this evaluation, it is recommended that
the City continue to use speed humps on residential streets to control
speeding problems, and that the selection process be modified so as to
minimize the negative impacts of speed humps. These modifications
include the following:
1) Speed humps shall not be installed on routes identified as Primary
Emergency Response Routes. A proposed map of primary, secondary
and tertiary response routes is included. The Berkeley Fire Department
and Police Department should be consulted for every proposed speed
hump installation. This review may identify streets other than primary
response routes where speed hump installation would create problems
for emergency response vehicles.
2) The speed hump petition form should be revised to inform residents
of the delay that speed humps can cause to emergency vehicles. A
proposed form is included.
3) Wider speed humps, such as 22 -foot humps, should be used in
situations where Traffic Engineering staff feel that they are more
appropriate than the standard 12 -foot wide speed humps.
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/PW/traffic/execsumm.html
4q
3/22/01
Speed Hump Program - Evaluation Page 4 of 5
4) Speed humps should not be installed or should be modified on
blocks where there is an abutting resident who objects to the installation
because of special medical conditions. Modification of the installation
could involve lower or wider humps, or deliberately placing a hump so
as to allow the resident egress from the block without passing over it.
5) Speed humps should be installed and maintained using better quality
control in order to minimize their impact on residents who feel pain
driving or riding over them, and to make them less obtrusive to
bicyclists. Corrective maintenance should be performed on speed
humps that are too high, have ramps that are too steep, or have an
interface with the street pavement which is not smooth.
6) When speed humps are installed on streets with bike lanes, care
should be taken so that the humps do not adversely impact bicycle
travel in the lanes. In most cases, this means that humps should not
taper off within the bike lane. Instead, humps should end before
crossing the lane, or should continue across the lane without tapering
off.
7) The separate program for Special Enforcement Area speed humps
should be folded into the regular program by modifying the priority
ranking system so that points are given to locations with problems such
as drug dealing or other Special Enforcement issues. A proposed
ranking system is included.
8) The criteria for new installations should be modified so that only
streets with clear speeding problems will be considered for speed
humps. A proposed list of criteria is included.
9a) Proposed speed humps should be evaluated in terms of their
impact on surrounding local residential streets. New installation should
be avoided where it can be expected that a significant amount of traffic
will be diverted to other local streets. After installation, Traffic
Engineering staff should monitor diverted traffic, and mitigate the
impacts where they are significant.
9b) Traffic Engineering staff should adopt a policy that determines what
level of traffic increase is acceptable for streets receiving diverted
traffic, based on a proposed Impact Threshold Curve.
City of Berkeley Home / Departments / Public Works Home / Bids and Contracts
Refuse and Recycling / Sewers / Sidewalks / Streets / Storm Water / Traffic / Utilities
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/PW/traffic/execsumm.html 3/22/01
so
1 1 arG 1 V1 J
Myths, Realities, and Frequently Asked Questions
About Speed Bumps and Intersection (Traffic) Circles
Time delays have a more negative impact on people the farther they are from
help. A 30 -second delay in an emergency response is more detrimental to people
when added onto a six minute response than when added onto a two minute
response. Full-blown traffic mitigation on emergency response routes will
disproportionately impact citizens living and working at the edges of Fire
Department response districts."
Boulder Fire Chief Larry Donner, March 12, I997
Index:
Myth: "Boulder's neighborhood streets are unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists."
Accident and Emergency Call Trends,_ 1.992-1.999
Accident and Emergency Call Totals 1992-1999
Myth;_ "Fire departments in other cities approve of bumps and_circ_1_es."
Myth: "Mitigation devices have been used in other countries for many years with no
problems or -public opposition."
Myth: "Lowering speed limits will make the streets safer."
Myth: "Traffic_ mitigation _device_ s reduce the accident rate."
Myth: "Traffic circles are safe for pedestrians and cyclists."
Myth: "Traffic conRestion_delays emergency response,_ so delays caused bytraffic
mitigation are irrelevant."
Myth: "Boulder's neighborhood streets are unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists."
Reality: Claims that Boulder's neighborhoods are made unsafe by speeding cars are
factually unsupportable. From 1992-1999 there were five fatalities in auto/pedestrian
accidents, all on our busiest arterial streets, none in neighborhoods. Non-fatal accidents
averaged about 51 per year and are not increasing despite traffic growth. All but a
scattering of these 413 accidents occurred on just six arterial streets -Broadway, Canyon,
Arapahoe, 28th, 30th, and Table Mesa west of Broadway. Objective evidence shows
convincingly that effective pedestrian safety initiatives would focus on commercial
districts and multi -lane roads, not local streets. Return to page Index
Accident and Emergency Call Trends, 1992-1999
http://www.users.qwest.net/—erinard/myths`/`20main.htm
S1
3/22/01
iviyins Page 2 of 5
Traffic Accidents & Emergency Calls
3 5000 ----------------------------------------------- --
4000 ------------------------------ -- ------ ---- ---
f—Medical Emergencies
3000 --------------------------------------------------- 4 Fire Emergencies
Hazardous Condtions
2000 ---------------------------
Auto kyury Accidents
1000 --------------------------------------------------- - - -BowkyuryAcciderds
Pedestrian kyury Accidents
0 - --
92 '93 '94 195 '96 '97 '98 199
Year
Return _toDaee Index
Accident and Emergency Call Totals, 1992-1999
92-'99 Total Calls and Accidents
for Boulder, CO.
Return to page_ Index
Myth: "Fire departments in other cities approve of bumps and circles."
Reality: Fire departments EVERYWHERE have opposed the devices, including those in
so-called "progressive" cities like Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. A fire chief
http://www.users.gwest.net/--efinard/myths°/`20main.htm 3/22/01
SZ
mpliz, Page 3 of 5
in Portland states that their transportation division did not involve them at all in the initial
stages of their project and in fact would not allow them to express their concerns
publicly. A firefighter in Seattle stated that they gave up trying to oppose them, and that
some of their larger trucks cannot get around the circles. One must remember that fire
chiefs are city employees, and some are more willing than others to speak out. Return to
page In
Myth: "Mitigation devices have been used in other countries for many years with
no problems or public opposition"
Britain's Transport Research Laboratory, a scientific research organization which
originated the design of the speed "hump", reversed its support for the devices after
receiving numerous complaints of "excessive noise, vibration, increased vehicle
emissions and significant increase in accidents involving cyclists and motorcyclists".
TRL report #307 recognizes a conflict between vertical devices and the desired shift to
public transportation, as the devices "cause damage and increase maintenance to buses
and cause physical problems to drivers."
Towns and cities throughout Britain are to spend millions of English pounds lowering or
removing 500,000 speed humps to accommodate buses which must meet new disability
regulations to allow wheelchair access. "Until this happens, roads with humps have
been declared bus -less zones. " (The London Telegraph, Feb. 27, 2000.)
The "success" of the use of the devices can be attributed to the lack of a democratic
process for their installation. In 1999, the residents of the city of Leicester, England
collected 500 signatures out of 700 homes to express their objection to an installation of
humps in their town. It was discovered pamphlets were published rubber-stamping the
project before the meeting of the councilors to consider the petition even took place.
Such "success" is sought by some members of our Boulder City Council. Return to page
Index
Myth: "Lowering speed limits will make the streets safer."
Reality: According to a Federal Highway Administration study titled "Driver Speed
Behavior on U.S. Streets and Highways", by Samuel C. Tignor, Ph.D., chief of the Traffic
Safety Research Division at FHA, establishing speed limits above or below the 85th
percentile speed causes more accidents. The study states: "Properly established speed
limits foster voluntary compliance and separate the occasional high-risk driver from the
vast majority of drivers. On the other hand, speed limits which are set artificially low tend
to be ignored and misallocate resources, apprehending and prosecuting motorists driving
at safe speeds. Over time this could lead to a loss of respect for all speed limits and create
the impression that traffic law enforcement and the judicial system are unfair. Return to
page In
http://www.users.gwest.net/—erinard/myths%20main.htm 3/22/01
S3
iviyins Page 4 of 5
Myth: "Traffic mitigation devices reduce the accident rate."
Reality: Boulder's own statistics do not support this statement. Accidents increased
dramatically in the two years after the experimental devices were installed in Whittier and
Balsam/Edgewood. Winter conditions at the traffic circles cause unprecedented pileups.
One particularly bad snowstorm in 1997 yielded 6 traffic accidents at the traffic circle on
17th and Pine in 12 hours. Traffic accidents between Broadway and 20th on Norwood
were virtually non-existent prior to installation of traffic mitigation. Norwood has
experienced two very serious traffic accidents directly related to traffic mitigation devices
since installation. This despite that the mild winters over the past three years have meant
fewer accidents in general.
The most recent report on traffic calming in the U.S. was commissioned by the Federal
Highway administration and the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) in 1999. Reid
Ewing, urban planner and self -professed supporter of the devices, authored the report.
Ewing acknowledges assessment of the safety benefits of calming devices is inconsistent
at best. Ewing states: "One reason for these mixed results may be due to statistics.
Traffic calming in the U.S. is largely restricted to low volume residential streets.
Collisions occur infrequently on such streets to begin with, and any systematic change in
collision rates tends to get lost in the random variation from year to year. This limits our
confidence in drawing inferences about safety impacts of traffic calming." (Traffic
Calming: State of the Practice, 1999 p. 111)
A paper presented by Gerald J.S. Wilde, Department of Psychology, Queen's University,
Kingston, Ontario titled "Can traffic calming devices be expected to reduce the accident
rate per head of population or per unit distance driven?" states the following: "...there is a
paradox between some popular safety policies. This is all the more puzzling as these
different safety policies may well be implemented simultaneously and even by the same
accident prevention agency. The first policy aims to reduce the severity of the
consequences of risky behaviour by the installation of seatbelts, airbags, crash barriers,
wide and forgiving roads, collapsible lamp posts, crashworthy vehicles and so forth. The
second policy is to increase the severity of the consequences of imprudent behaviour and
thus to 'scare people into behaving safely.' Examples are speed bumps, narrow street
passages, barbed wire, rumble strips, pavement undulation, chicanes, speed tables, traffic
throttles or pinch points. ...measures aimed at reducing traffic and rapid traffic flow
increase the accident rate per kilometer driven." Return to nage Index
Myth: "Traffic circles are safe for pedestrians and cyclists."
Reality: Boulder Bicycle Commuters (BBC) adopted an official policy against traffic
circles in 1997. They continue to hold this policy to date. According to BBC, traffic
circles are "Too expensive, dangerous, intimidating to new cyclists, confusing to many
motorists..." The Federal Highway Administration State of the Art Report On Residential
Traffic Management states the following about traffic circles:
While no formal statistics exist on traffic circle safety, considerable observations have
http://www.users.qwest.net/--erinarci/myths*/*20main.htm
sy
3/22/01
Myths Page 5 of 5
been made of unsafe practices caused by circles. They present an increased hazard to
pedestrians by bringing vehicles, some at relatively high speeds, nearer to the curb where
the pedestrians are waiting. The deflection they cause to an automobile can also impinge
upon a bicyclists path ...... The lack of substantiating accident statistics tend to speak more
to the short time of usage and usage on low volume streets rather than necessarily
indicating inherent safety of the devices.... Traffic circles should not be located where a
clear pedestrian or bicycle demand may create conflicts as noted above." Return to page
Index
Myth: "Traffic congestion delays emergency response, so delays caused by traffic
mitigation are irrelevant."
Reality: While traffic congestion does adversely impact emergency response, it is a
transient condition focused on arterial roadways. It also makes no sense whatsoever to
dismiss delays caused by traffic mitigation simply because congestion can also be a factor
in sub -standard emergency response. Delay, however incurred or imposed, is deadly.
Traffic mitigation devices impose a permanent, 24 hour per day delay on response times.
Since these devices are being proposed for neighborhood streets that don't experience
congestion, they are undoubtedly the principle cause of delay. In fact, according to the
April 8th, 1997 NTMP Status Report written by Boulder's Public Works Department,
Page 23, Paragraph 7,
In 1995, 97% of the responses to the Pine corridor had a response time of 6 minutes or
less, while only about 88% of the calls City-wide met the 6 -minute criteria. Between
1995 and 1996, the response time for this corridor increased 27.8 seconds compared to an
overall increase of 6.21 seconds for the City. Similar degradation curves are found at the
5 and 4 minute response levels. The Department's analysis shows that the degradation is
statistically significant and highly correlated to the mitigation devices. There is a
99.989% chance that degradation in response time is related to traffic mitigation. Out
statistical evidence also shows that 0.5% of the response time degradation is due to other
system -wide factors." Return to page Index
http://www.users.qwest.net/--en'nard/myths`/`20main.htm
S'S
3/22/01
Agenda Number:
J
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Future Study Sessions
DATE: March 22, 2001, for City Council meeting of March 29, 2001
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Amend the list of pending study session topics and, if desired,
establish future special meetings.
2. BACKGROUND: The City Council recently decided that three members of the Council
must agree in order for an item to be placed on the pending study session topics list. The
current list is attached for review and amendment. Calendars are also attached for the
Council's use in scheduling future study sessions.
The City Council has a study session scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, at 7 p.m. to consider
issues relating to the City Center area. It may be possible to add one item to that agenda.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Joint meeting with EQC on Medicine Lake water quality improvements.
late summer, videotape meeting).
South Shore Drive safety improvements, including pedestrian patterns
and Luce Line impacts, speed humps, and stop signs (late summer).
Consider ways to minimize effects of exposure to second-hand smoke
Snowplowing (May)
Quarterly check-in with City Manager (next in May/June)
Other proposed study session topics:
School Safety policies (Judy Johnson)
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
March 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Feb 2001
S M T W T F S
Apr 2001
S M T W T F S
1
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMMISSION -
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Medicine Lake
Room
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
25 26 27 28 29 30
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7:00 PM YOUTH 6:30 PM BOARD 7:00 PM 7:00 PM PRAC,
ADVISORY AND PLANNING Council
COUNCIL,
Medicine Lake
COMMISSION
RECEPTION,
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
Chambers
Room Plymouth Creek
Center
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
7:00 PM EQC, 7:00 PM HRA - 8:30 AM - 2:30
Council Medicine Lake PM, LEAGUE OF
Chambers Room
7:00 PM PUBLIC
MINNESOTA
HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSIONS
SAFETY REGIONAL
ADVISORY MEETING,
BOARD, Police Council
Dept. Library Chambers
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Medicine Lake
Room
5:30 PMSPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING.
Update on Hilde Pert.
Ctr. and Surface Water
UtilityFee Structure,
Public Safety Training
Room
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
5:00 PM - 7 PM, 2001
STREET
RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT PUBLIC
INFORMATION
SESSION, Lunch Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Counal Chambers
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
7:30 AM LOCAL7:00
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
Radisson Hotel
5:30 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
Speed Hump Policy,
Public Safety Training
Room
PM PACT - 7 00
Lake ROOM
6:30 PM MEDICINE
LAKE WATERSHED
EQC)
SUB -COMMITTEE,
Medicine Lake Room
5:00 PM THRU
APRIL 4 -
PLYMOUTH FINE
ARTS COUNCIL
PRIMAVERA
SHOW, Plymouth
Creek Center
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 3/23/2001
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
April 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS
COMMENCES -
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
7:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL
MEETING: City
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
sd docks ahead 1 Medicine Lake Center Streetscape Medicine Lake
hour Room Imp., panting bays
on Ply Blvd., Police
Training Room
7:00 PM SKATE
PARK
INFORMATIONAL
MEETING, Plymouth
Creek Center
Room
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7:00 PM 7:00 PM EQC, 7:00 PM PRAC,
REGULAR Council Council
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers Chambers
Chambers
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:00 PM YOUTH 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM HRA - 11:00 AM CITY
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Medicine Lake
Room
BOARD OF
REVIEW,
Council
Chambers
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
Medicine Lake
Room
7:00 PM PUBLIC
SAFETY
EMPLOYEE
RECOGNITION
LUNCHEON,
Plymouth Creek
Center
ADVISORY
BOARD, Police
Dept. Library
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7:30 AM LOCAL
BUSINESS
COUNCIL, Radisson
Hotel
7:00 PM PACT -
Bass Lake Room
6:30 PM MEDICINE
LAKE WATERSHED
EQC)
SUB -COMMITTEE,
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
29 30
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
May 2001
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
Mar 2001
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
Medicine Lake
Room
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 27 28 29 30 31
modified on 3/23/2001
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
May 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5
Apr 2001
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:00 PM BOARD
OF REVIEW
RECONVENED),
Council Chambers
8:00 AM - 1 PM
HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
REGIONAL
WORKSHOP, Pymouth
Creek center
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
Room
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Counal
Chambers
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL TOWN
FORUM, Plymouth
Creek Center
7:00 PM EQC,
Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PRAC,
CouncilPM
Chambers
10:30 AM - 4:00
PLYMOUTH
HISTORY
FEST, Parkers
7-.00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
Lake Park
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Medicine Lake
RoomPlymouth
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
TOWN
MEETING,
Creek
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HRA -
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM PUBLIC
SAFETY ADVISORY
BOARD, Dept.
Center
700 PM YOUTH
SERVICE AWARDS,
Plymouth Creek Center
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
6:00 PM MILLENNIUM
GARDEN
GROUNDBREAKING
CEREMONY, Plymouth
Creek Center
7'.30 AM LOCAL
BUSINESS
COUNCIL, Radisson
Hotel
7:00 PM PACT -
Bass Lake Room
7'.00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Counal Chambers
27 28 29 30 31 Jun 2001
MEMORIAL DAY
Observed) - City
Offices Closed
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Medicine Lake
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Room
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
modified on 3/23/2001
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
June 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2
May 2001 Jul 2001
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7:00 PM 7:00 PM HUMAN
PLANNING RIGHTS
COMMISSION, COMMISSION -
Council Chambers Medicine Lake
Room
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
7:00 PM 7:00 PM EQC, 7:00 PM PRAC,
REGULAR Council Council
COUNCIL Chambers Chambers
MEETING, Council
Chambers
Flag Day
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
7:00 PM
PLANNING
7:00 PM HRA -
Medicine Lake
9:15 AM MUSIC IN
PLYMOUTH 5k
COMMISSION, Room RUN
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PUBLIC
SAFETY
ADVISORY
BOARD, Police
Dept. Library
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Duluth DECC
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
7 30 AM LOCAL
BUSINESS
7:00PM PACT -
Bass Lake Room
COUNCIL, Radisson
Hotel
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING.
Counal Chambers
modified on 3/23/2001
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
July 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
INDEPENDENCE 5:15 PM MUSIC
DAY - City Offices IN PLYMOUTH,
Closed City Center
Amphitheater
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
Room
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7:00 PM 7:00 PM EQC, 7:00 PM PRAC,
REGULAR Council Council
COUNCIL Chambers Chambers
MEETING, Council
Chambers
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:00 PM 7:00 PM HRA -
PLANNING Medicine Lake
COMMISSION, Room
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PUBLIC
SAFETY
ADVISORY
BOARD, Police
Dept. Library
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7.30 AM LOCAL
BUSiNESS
F 7:00 PM PACT -
Bass Lake Room
COUNCIL, Radisson
Hotel
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
29 30 31
Jun 2001 Aug 2001
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31
modified on 3/23/2001