My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2016-09-12 Closed and Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
AgdaPkt 2016-09-12 Closed and Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2016 11:52:14 AM
Creation date
9/12/2016 7:53:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
9/12/2016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
973
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
5 <br /> <br />speed limit is 30 mph or less. Where speed problems occur on streets with higher speed limits <br />(such as streets posted for 35 mph experiencing 45-50 mph traffic), focused enforcement and <br />combinations of other types of control measures should be considered instead of speed humps. <br /> <br />Speed humps should only be used on streets where traffic speeds are intended to be low. Speed <br />humps should not be installed on streets where the posted speed limit is considerably greater than <br />speeds at which most motorists feel comfortable traversing the speed humps. <br /> <br />In Redwood City, specific criteria to qualify for traffic calming are as follows: <br />· Eighty-fifth percentile speed exceeds 30 mph (35 mph on streets posted 30mph), <br />· 60 percent of the traffic exceeds the posted speed limit (normally 25 mph), <br />· The average speed of vehicles in the top 15th percentile is 40 mph or greater. <br /> <br />Traffic Volumes <br /> <br />Traffic calming should be installed only on streets classified as “Local Streets”, “Pedestrian <br />Streets,” or “Bicycle Boulevards.” Such streets typically have an average daily traffic volume of <br />5,000 vehicles or fewer. Requests are occasionally received to install traffic calming on streets <br />classified as “Local Streets,” Pedestrian Streets,” or “Bicycle Boulevards” that carry higher traffic <br />volumes, indicative of a higher functional classification of street (nominally, above 5,000ADT, <br />average daily trips). When considering such situations, the City must make a conscious policy <br />decision. Is the street really a “local” street that is simply impacted by too much traffic which is <br />traveling too fast? If so, traffic calming may be an appropriate response. Or is the street really <br />fulfilling a necessary and appropriate “major collector” function in the City's circulation network - in <br />essence, is its designation a misclassification? In the latter case, traffic calming is probably too <br />restrictive and should not be used. <br /> <br />For cut-through traffic, the specific criteria to qualify for traffic calming is as follows: <br />· 40% or more ADT on a local street is cut-through traffic between arterials or major roadways <br /> <br />Traffic Safety <br /> <br />When traffic calming measures are installed to address documented or anticipated vehicle or <br />pedestrian collisions, the causes of those collisions should be correctable by speed control. <br /> <br />Proposed traffic calming must be evaluated in the field to verify that such installations will not <br />introduce or increase the potential for collisions. <br /> <br />Vehicle Mix <br /> <br />Typically, traffic calming should not be installed on streets that carry significant volumes of <br />truck traffic unless there is a reasonable alternative route for those vehicles. Generally, heavy or <br />long-wheelbase trucks constituting up to five percent of all traffic is considered normal. Special <br />consideration may be given to a location where there is a significant generator of truck traffic. <br /> <br />Bicyclists, motorcyclists, low-riders, and operators of other types of special vehicles often <br />consider traffic calming annoying. While potentially annoying to these types of roadway users, <br />traffic calming does not constitute an unusual hazard or obstruction for these vehicles. For this <br />reason, the possible presence of these vehicle types is not a reason to deny approval of <br />traffic calming in circumstances where it would otherwise appear desirable or needed. <br />6.3.B. - Page 22
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.