REPORT TO COUNCIL
REPORT NUMBER: PW-027-2021
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
MEETING DATE: June 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Traffic Assessment Study
RECOMMENDATION: Be It Resolved, that Council of the Township of Clearview hereby: 1) Receive report PW-027-2021 and the Draft Traffic Assessment Study, and: 2) Approve the recommendations outlined in the Traffic Assessment Study.
BACKGROUND: In 2020, Council directed Staff to initiate a comprehensive review of traffic in the Township and in particular traffic on the Township North/South roads, where many motorist travel through Clearview Township to destinations in Collingwood, Blue Mountain and Wasaga Beach.
Henry Centen, P. Eng. Senior Transportation Engineer, RJ Burnside, provided a Traffic Assessment Study utilizing Ontario Traffic Inc. (OTI). OTI gathered traffic data at forty (40) locations throughout the Township. Traffic data was collected from June 5th, 2020 to June 11th, 2020 at all 48 locations. Staff also provided traffic data that had been collected from the digital speed display signs.
COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS:
A draft of the Traffic Assessment Study (TAS) was received by staff on April 23, 2021 and a workshop was held with Council on May 27th, 2021. The Traffic Assessment Report details the technical documents/manuals that are used by traffic professionals when designing or studying roadways in Canada, they are; Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) manuals/guidelines, Ontario Traffic Manuals (OTM), and the Townships Traffic Calming Guidelines. The TAS studied a variety of physical and user characteristics that effect where and how motorists travel, such as; vehicle speeds, traffic patterns, current traffic calming and possible traffic calming solutions and roadway design.
Page 1 of 2
Mr. Centen makes several recommendations for the Township to consider in the short and long term. Staff agree with the recommendations. The recommendations are listed below;
Short Term
• Review the travel speeds for roads with significant horizontal/vertical curves with an operating speed that exceed 10km/h over the posted speed and that appropriate signs are in place, • Speed reduction on Lavender Hill Road, Concession 10, Hogback Road and 36/37 Sideroad from 80km/h to 70 km/h. • Review of speed signage on all roadways to ensure that motorists are adequately informed of the speed limits. • Increase vegetation clearing on several roads. • Review and improvements to the Township Traffic Calming Policy for Urban and Rural Township Roads.
Long Term
• Road Design – consider revising roadway design for rural and urban roads which carry higher traffic volumes for roadway widths, shoulder widths, and geometrics to handle the increase traffic demands. • Revising roadway design to accommodate other road users, bicycles, ATV, agricultural users, pedestrians, etc. • Develop a Complete Streets Policy.
Timing for the implementation of the recommendations made in the TAS would be estimated to take 1-2 years for short term measures and 3-5 years for long term measures based on budget allocation.
COMMUNICATION PLAN:
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The installation of additional warning and regulatory signs will require additional budget allocation in the sign operating budget. Further studies and review of Township policies will have to be budgeted for in future budget years. REPORT SCHEDULES: Attachment No.1 – DRAFT Traffic Assessment Study – April 2021
PREPARED BY:
Dan Perreault, C.E.T. Deputy Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
Mike Rawn, C.E.T. Director of Public Works Page 2 of 2
Traffic Assessment Study
Township of Clearview 217 Gideon Street Stayner, ON
DRAFT
Traffic Assessment Study
Township of Clearview 217 Gideon Street Stayner, ON
DRAFTR.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood ON L9Y 4J6 CANADA
June 2021 300051895.0000
Township of Clearview i Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Distribution List
No. of PDF Email Organization Name Hard Copies 0 Yes Yes Township of Clearview
Record of Revisions
Revision Date Description 0 April 2021 Initial Submission to Township of Clearview 1 June 2021 Draft Submission for Council Consideration
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
Report Prepared By:
Henry Centen, P. Eng. Senior Transportation Engineer HBC:ba
Nansen Feng, EIT Transportation Planner NF:ba
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study
Township of Clearview ii Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Executive Summary
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) has been retained by the Township of Clearview (Township) to provide a Traffic Analysis Study (TAS) that reviews potential speeding issues on various roads in the Township, in order determine appropriate posted speeds and to identify potential measures to improve access, safety and mobility throughout the Township.
The traffic analysis outlined in this study has taken into account traffic volumes and operating speeds, in addition to other factors, to review the traffic operations on forty-eight (48) roads within the Township. The Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits (Transportation Association of Canada, (TAC) 2009) were used to assess various factors impacting the establishment of appropriate posted speeds, along with engineering judgement applied to the unique characteristics of each road. Consideration has also been made to the Township’s Traffic Calming Policy (August 2019) in assessing the potential need for traffic calming measures to be considered.
General suggestions have also been made for future reviews of the Township’s Traffic Calming Policy, based on a review of industry standards and best practices followed by other municipalities. It is recommended the policy be reviewed to determine the appropriate threshold speed exceedance to trigger intervention measures, with consideration of the road context. Contextually, it is recommended that road designs strive to meet the requirements of “complete streets”, where appropriate, with consideration for all users including motor vehicles (cars and trucks), buses, pedestrians, cyclists, horse-and-buggies, and ATVs. It is recommended that the Township develop a Complete Streets Policy and Guidelines as guidance for new street designs within the Township, as well as for reconstruction work.
If posted speeds are reduced in urban and semi-urban areas, it is recommended that such reductions be based on an engineering study, implemented on a trial basis, with follow-up monitoring to establish the effectiveness of the lower speed limit.
A number of the Township’s roads provide alternate routes to the County Roads or Provincial Highways, due to their location within the road network, and therefore carry increased volumes of through traffic. It is recommended the designs for roads which carry higher traffic volumes be reviewed to ensure that travel widths, shoulder widths and road geometrics can service the increased traffic demands in those areas. Based on theDRAFT reviews completed, we have provided an assessment of the existing posted speeds on the roads in the study area, as well as needs for increased speed management and / or future monitoring of both speed data, collision data and traffic operations. Increased speed management measures may include road watch signage, police enforcement or radar speed boards. Additional recommendations have been made for future review of engineering parameters (e.g., road shoulder requirements) and for further considerations of traffic calming measures to address those roads where speeding issues or traffic conflict potential warrant such additional study.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview iii Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
The results of the traffic assessments completed are summarized in the report for each road segment, with the locations of the road segments shown on the mapping in Appendix A of this report.
Most of the roads surveyed in this TAS currently have posted speeds that are acceptable, based on the criteria considered, with the following exceptions: • Lavender Hill Road between County Road 9 and Mulmur / Clearview Townline. • Concession 10 between County Road 91 and 33 / 34 Sideroad, if the road remains as gravel surface. • Concession 10 between 33 / 34 Sideroad and Poplar Sideroad. • 36 / 37 Sideroad between County Road 124 and Concession 10, reduction in west section. • 36 / 37 Sideroad between County Road 124 and Concession 6.
The posted speed limit on these segments is recommended to be reduced by 10 km/h (from 80 km/h to 70 km/h).
The reduction of posted speeds is intended to reflect the desirable target speeds along the corridor, where such reductions do not create the potential for undesirable speed differentials. However, it is acknowledged that a reduction of the posted speed does not typically have a significant impact on operational speeds, unless also accompanied by other measures (e.g., other traffic calming measures and / or increased enforcement). It is also recommended that sufficient posted speed signs be placed along the corridors to ensure that motorists are aware of the speed requirements for all areas where speed may be a concern.
Based on the analysis in this TAS, it is recommended that traffic calming measures be considered for 22 of the roads reviewed, due to the high operating speeds on those roads. It is recommended that future study be completed to determine the most appropriate and effective traffic calming strategy for those roads, with the solutions recognizing the opportunities and constraints on a site-specific basis. Detailed review of collision data should be completed prior to the implementation of traffic calming measures, to confirm that the measures proposed are appropriate. Details of the general traffic calming options available have been provided in this study, along with their pros and cons for future reference in identifying potential solutions.
Based on the review in this TAS, it is recommended that the shoulder requirements be reviewed on 27 of the roads in the study area. The width and surface type of road shoulders shouldDRAFT be reviewed to ensure that they conform to the design standards. The shoulder designs should also be reviewed to ensure that they are sufficient to minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and other users (e.g., cyclists, pedestrians, ATVs, horse and buggies etc.). The provision of appropriate shoulders also reduces the risks associated with higher traffic speeds along these corridors.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview iv Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Based on the review in this TAS, it is recommended that additional clearing of vegetation on the road right-of-way (ROW) be provided on 9 of the roads in the study area. Particular emphasis for clearing should be those areas where vegetation represents a hazard within the clear zone and / or where sight distances may be compromised by such obstruction. The provision of appropriate clearing on the ROW reduces the risks associated with higher traffic speeds along these corridors.
While this TAS has considered some of the primary criteria affecting posted speeds, it is recommended that any future revisions to these speeds should also include a review of the following: • Detailed collision analysis to verify the extent of safety issues on a case-by-case basis. • Completion of speed profiles to confirm speed variations along the corridor. • Determination of the viability and effectiveness of implementing alternative traffic management measures (e.g., increased enforcement, signage, community safety zones, radar speed boards, modification to traffic controls, etc.). • Determination of the viability of implementing physical changes to improve consistency between operating speeds and posted speeds (e.g., modification to lane widths or lane usage, improved geometrics (horizontal and vertical), traffic calming measures, improvement to alternate routes or alternate travel modes, changes to adjacent land-uses, etc.). • Review of site-specific considerations (e.g., vehicle type, access conditions and intersection spacing, etc.). • Detailed pedestrian / cyclist considerations. • Detailed review of road design and maintenance issues. • Detailed land-use considerations. • Traffic infiltration or diversion issues or road network considerations. • Other policy considerations.
It is recommended that the Township complete further detailed review to confirm if the criteria applied in this TAS are sufficient to justify these posted speed adjustments, or whether other factors should also be considered.
Where changes are implemented by the Township, that may affect speeds (e.g., revising posted speeds, implementing traffic calming, modifying road designs or road maintenance practices), the impacts of such changes should be confirmed through a follow-up traffic speed / volume study. Ideally this study should be undertaken approximatelyDRAFT 6 to 12 months after implementing the measures, to confirm that the measures have achieved their desired goals, or whether additional mitigation work is required.
It is recommended that signage be reviewed (i.e., speed signs and warning signs) for all sections where the operating speeds exceed the posted speed by over 10 km/h. Signage should be adequately informing the motorist of the target speeds and allow for speed enforcement. Speed warning signs and curve delineation signs should be
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview v Traffic Assessment Study June 2021 reviewed at critical locations to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) and of the guidelines recommended by the TAC.
It is recommended the travel speeds be reviewed for areas with significant horizontal or vertical curves on all roads that have operating speeds exceeding 10 km/h over the posted speeds. The review should take into consideration the potential for speed differentials along the corridor, sight distances and access operations in the areas of these curves, as well as road and shoulder width requirements. Speed warning signs and curve delineation signs should be reviewed at critical locations to ensure that they meet the requirements of the OTM and of the guidelines recommended by the TAC.
This TAS has also considered the general requirements associated with Community Safety Zones (CSZ). Based on analysis in other municipalities, implementation of such zones alone does not appear to be sufficient to achieve the target speeds in these areas, although future consideration of implementing automated speed enforcement in these areas is possible and would improve speed compliance. It is recommended that increased enforcement be implemented in these areas. In urban and semi-urban areas, it is recommended the consideration of future CSZ designations be based on a review of the potential safety issues on a case-by-case basis. In rural areas, the implementation of CSZ designations would not typically apply, since the primary objective of raising awareness of motorists to an area of increased safety concerns / conflict may not be achieved, nor necessarily be discernable by the travelling public.
This TAS has also considered the general requirements associated with implementing all-way stop control (AWSC) at unsignalized intersections. AWSC are not effective in addressing speed-related issues or deterring infiltration traffic through neighbourhoods and therefore should only be considered if the site-specific conditions meet the guidelines / warrants set out in Book 5 of the OTM (i.e., based on a complete engineering study of the intersection). Speeding or traffic infiltration issues should be addressed through traffic calming, traffic management and speed enforcement measures.
A literature review has been conducted as part of this TAS to identify available traffic calming measures and to compare the pros and cons of these measures. These measures are intended to slow traffic on local and collector roads, reallocate inappropriate traffic away from local streets, and reduce speeds on arterial roads. These measures are typically a combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorizedDRAFT street users. The objective is to implement traffic calming measures that result in a net improvement (both real and perceived) in the quality of life and community safety at a reasonable cost.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview vi Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Scope of Work ...... 1 2.0 Methodologies to Assess Speed Issues ...... 3 2.1 Posted Speed, Operating Speed, Target Speed and Design Speed ...... 3 2.2 Existing Traffic Calming Policy in the Township of Clearview ...... 3 2.3 Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits (Transportation Association of Canada, December 2009) ...... 5 2.4 Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming, Second Edition (Transportation Association of Canada, February 2018)...... 7 2.5 Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (Transportation Association of Canada, June 2017) ...... 7 2.6 Speed Management: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, 2012) ...... 8 2.7 Speed Concepts: Informational Guide (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-SA-10-001, September 2009) ...... 9 2.8 Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-RD-98-154, July 1998) ...... 10 3.0 Functional, Physical, Social and Natural Environments ...... 11 3.1 Functional Classification of the Road ...... 11 3.2 Roadside Environment and Land Use ...... 12 3.3 Engineered Physical Road Attributes ...... 13 3.3.1 Gravel Road Considerations ...... 14 3.3.2 Road and Shoulder Width Considerations ...... 15 3.3.3 Vertical and Horizontal Curve Considerations ...... 18 3.4 Road Network and User Characteristics ...... 19 3.4.1 Road Network ...... 19 3.4.2 Road Users ...... 19 3.4.3 Complete Streets ...... 23 4.0 Collision Assessment ...... 26 5.0 Speed Assessment ...... 29 5.1 General Considerations in Speed Assessment...... 29 5.2 Assessment of Traffic Speed, Traffic Volume and Vehicle Classification .. 30 5.2.1 Traffic Data Collected ...... 30 5.2.2 Areas With High Operating Speeds Relative to Posted Speeds .... 30 DRAFT5.2.3 Areas with Low Operating Speeds Relative to Posted Speeds ...... 33 5.2.4 Assessment of Operating Speeds Relative to TAC Guidelines ...... 34 5.2.5 Basis of Posted Speed Recommendations ...... 37 6.0 Traffic Management Strategy ...... 47 6.1 Traffic Calming Measures ...... 47 6.2 Review of Traffic Calming Policy ...... 48 6.3 Speed Management ...... 49 6.3.1 Speed Signage ...... 49
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview vii Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
6.3.2 Radar Speed Signs ...... 50 6.3.3 Community Safety Zones ...... 50 6.3.4 Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) ...... 51 6.3.5 All-Way Stop Control ...... 52 7.0 Closing Comments ...... 54
Tables Table 1: Gravel Roads in the Study Area ...... 14 Table 2: Considerations for Reviews to Minimize Risk in Accommodating ORVs on Municipal Roads ...... 21 Table 3: Collision Summary ...... 26 Table 4: Roads with Operating Speed Exceeding 10 km/h Over Posted Speed ...... 30 Table 5: Roads with Operating Speeds 8 km/h or Greater Below Operating Speed ..... 33 Table 6: Roads with Posted Speeds That Exceed TAC Recommended Posted Speed 35 Table 7: Roads with Low Operating Speeds but Insufficient Justification for a Posted Speed Reduction ...... 36 Table 8: Summary of Speed Analysis for Select Roads ...... 39
Figures Figure 1: CGTC Traffic Calming Process and Procedures ...... 7 Figure 2: Road Cross Section – Open Ditch Standard ...... 16 Figure 3: Road Cross Section – Curb & Gutter – 7.0 m Asphalt ...... 17 Figure 4: Road Cross Section – Curb & Gutter – 85 m Asphalt, 20 m ROW ...... 17 Figure 5: Road Cross Section – Curb & Gutter – 8.5 m Asphalt, 26 m ROW ...... 18 Figure 6: ATV Restrictions on Township Roads (By-Law 20-71) ...... 20 Figure 7: Typical Rural Cross-section or Semi-Urban Cross-section (20 m ROW) ...... 24 Figure 8: Typical Urban Cross-section (20 m ROW) ...... 24
Appendices Appendix A Road Inventory Map and Data Appendix B Clearview’s Current Traffic Calming Policy (Excerpts) – Process and Needs Score Appendix C TAC Speed Limit Guidelines – Excel Analysis Form Appendix D Traffic Speed / Volume Data Appendix E Traffic Calming Definitions and Pros and Cons DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview viii Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Disclaimer
Other than by the addressee, copying or distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is not permitted without the express written consent of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited.
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 1 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
1.0 Introduction
Burnside has been retained by the Township to prepare a TAS to review the speed-related traffic operations at 48 locations in the Township’s road network. The Township receives requests each year by residents that relate to speed-related issues on the Township’s roads. This study is intended to provide guidance to the Township on assessing the extent of speed-related issues and to offer potential mitigation strategies and policies to address such issues.
This report provides the results of the study work completed.
1.1 Scope of Work
This study assesses the traffic posted speed limits on forty-four (48) roads in the Township relative to their operating speeds, target speeds, traffic volumes and the physical / functional context of each of the roads. The intent is to make recommendations to improve safety, access and mobility on the Township’s roads.
The scope of the traffic assessment in this study includes the following: • Complete a review of the traffic operations at the 48 locations where traffic data has been collected on Township roads, including recommending solutions to address traffic issues in those areas. Such solutions may include measures to increase enforcement and / or adjusting posted speeds and / or adding traffic calming and / or addressing design issues. The traffic operations on the County Roads and Provincial Highways are assumed to be under the jurisdiction of the County and Province and therefore are not being reviewed in this study. • Review best practices for traffic calming policies / measures and make recommendations for improving the Township’s traffic calming policies / measures / procedures, if required. Information or recommendations will be provided relating to the creation of a Township policy / formula for dealing with speed reduction requests. • Review posted speeds and risk-related criteria at the 48 locations identified for review, to recommend appropriate posted speeds, based on a comparison to the requirements set out in the Township’s Traffic Calming Policy and to the risk analysis set out in the Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits. • General review of the appropriateness of speeds on roads that have vertical curve constraints. • Provide recommendationsDRAFT with respect to posted speeds in the rural and urban areas within the Township and for the different functional classifications (local, collector, arterial). These recommendations will be based on the above noted review, in addition to more recent initiatives within the transportation industry to set safer speeds. Setting speeds using legacy methods (e.g., the 85th percentile) can
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 2 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
result in speeds that are inappropriately fast for urban environments and will be a consideration in this study. • Identify roads where future monitoring and assessment study work should be completed (e.g., ongoing monitoring of speeds, speed differentials, collision data and traffic infiltration/diversion; additional consideration of traffic calming measures, review of road designs and maintenance, review of pedestrian/cyclist issues etc.).
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 3 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
2.0 Methodologies to Assess Speed Issues
2.1 Posted Speed, Operating Speed, Target Speed and Design Speed
Road design speeds have typically been set at 10 km/h over the posted speed in urban areas and 20 km/h over the posted speed in rural areas, with the intent that these exceedances will accommodate the operating speeds (i.e., assumed to be the 85th percentile speed, which is the speed at which 85% of the total traffic volume will not exceed). Therefore, the posted speed is aspirational and does not typically have any significant impact on modifying operating speeds (i.e., unless accompanied by enforcement). In most cases the actual operating speed is a reflection of the speed that the motorist feels comfortable at travelling, which is informed by the physical environment (e.g., urban vs rural, road width, road alignment, etc.), environmental conditions (e.g., weather, lighting, etc.) and motorist perception of risks (e.g., pedestrian or cyclist exposure, adjacent parking, etc.). Therefore, it is important that a target speed be established for any particular road segment that not only recognizes these various factors but also attempts to achieve some level of congruity, to achieve better design / operational consistency and therefore the safest possible conditions.
2.2 Existing Traffic Calming Policy in the Township of Clearview
The Township’s Traffic Calming Policy (CTCP) was approved by Council in August 2009. The CTCP is intended to meet the following primary objectives: • Reduce the volume and speeds of motor vehicle travel, to improve safety and livability of neighbourhoods, considering the needs of all residents (i.e., pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists). • Maintain the primary function for local roads to provide access and for collector roads to provide a balance between providing access and mobility for connections of traffic within the overall road network. • Maintain access routes for emergency services, public transit and maintenance services.
The CTCP considers the advantages and disadvantages of the following traffic calming measures to control speeds or traffic volumes: • Physical Speed Control Measures – speed humps, speed tables, raised intersections, traffic circles, roundabouts, chokers, realignment of intersections, curb extensionsDRAFT and narrowing of traffic lanes. • Non-Physical Speed Control Measures – pavement marking to narrow lanes or as warning signs, police enforcement, radar speed signs, community safety zones and school zones. • Volume Control Measures – full or partial closure of streets, diagonal diverters at intersections and median barriers.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 4 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
The CTCP outlines a systematic process to follow for studying traffic calming requirements that have been initiated by the public. Excerpts from the CTCP are included in Appendix B, along with the criteria (i.e., point ratings) that are used in the assessments to confirm the need for traffic calming. The steps within the Township’s process are: Initiation; Screening; Evaluation and Prioritization; Implementation and Monitoring.
These steps are described as follows: • Residents with traffic-related concerns are to submit a written request to the Township to investigate the concerns. • It must be satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to address the concerns utilizing means including engineering, education and enforcement tools. • The road must have a minimum length of 150 m and be primarily residential. • Traffic calming on roads with restricted horizontal and / or vertical alignment (i.e., restricted sight lines) should have traffic calming measures considered in conjunction with reduced speed limits and adequate warning signs. • Subject to the above considerations being met, the Township will undertake a speed study to further review the issue, including a review of the operating speed (i.e., 85th percentile speed) and the available stopping sight distance. Areas with operating speeds that exceed the posted speed limit by 10 km/hr., or more are given further consideration. • A weighted point system is assigned to the road based on the severity of certain road attributes, for comparison against a minimum point threshold value. • Subject to the points threshold being met, a support petition is required by the residents in the neighbourhood affected, prior to moving forward with any remedial work. • Subject to the above being met, the selection of traffic calming measure is finalized, with additional consultation with the public and affected agencies. • The proposed traffic calming work is subject to approval and budget allocation by Council prior to implementation of the measures.
To identify elements within the Township’s current CTCP that may warrant change, a review of industry standards and best practices followed by other municipalities in Ontario and Canada was completed. Based on this review, it is recommended that the traffic calming process include the following: • ConsiderationDRAFT of stand-alone (i.e., reactive) requests from residents to address speeding issues, as well as locations identified by the Township’s ongoing capital improvement process (i.e., proactive). • Implementation of a context-sensitive approach to traffic calming, recognizing that each road will have its unique operational and public safety needs, which require specific mitigation measures.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 5 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
• Adequately identify the causative factors that have resulted in the speeding issues, so that the most appropriate strategy can be developed to address the real problems, with consideration to engineering design issues of the road and road network, operational issues, enforcement, education and traffic calming measurers. • Consider the full range of options to slow down motor vehicles and improving conditions for all road users. • Consider the implications of implementing traffic calming measures, such as its potential to divert traffic and related issues to other travel routes, impact on emergency services and impacts on services (e.g., snow plowing). • Review of new developments to ensure that the design of new road networks and subdivisions include features that maintain operating speeds below target thresholds, thus minimizing future expenditures of the Township’s resources to reactively address speed issues. Standardizing a proactive approach for a new development design should be specific, yet easy to understand and apply. Using a standardized set of design principles, new subdivisions may have built-in speed reducing features that will ensure vehicle speeds remain below acceptable speeding thresholds and reduce, or even eliminate, the need for expensive retrofits. • Promote a fair allocation of financial resources through an incremental implementation of required traffic calming measures.
The Township’s CTCP sets a threshold of 10 km/hr. over the posted speed as a measure for moving forward with detailed consideration of traffic calming measures. For comparative purposes in this current TAS we have considered this threshold, however we note that some municipalities apply 15 km/hr. as the threshold in rural areas. We recommend that the 10 km/hr. threshold value be reviewed to determine its applicability for various contexts.
This current TAS has assessed the roads within the context of the Township’s current policies. However, we believe that the Township’s Traffic Calming Policy is largely focused on addressing speed issues in urban and semi-urban areas. Considering that the majority of the roads identified in this current TAS are rural, additional considerations apply, as discussed further in this report.
2.3 Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits (Transportation Association of Canada, December 2009)
The publication Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits (TAC, DecemberDRAFT 2009) indicates that the 85th percentile speed is sometimes used to determine the appropriate posted speed limit. However, 85th percentile speeds may vary based on numerous factors, such as level of congestion, weather, season, light and road surface conditions, and vehicle mix. Some drivers may also overestimate their driving skill and drive at speeds that are inappropriate for a given roadway’s conditions.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 6 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
An automated Excel spreadsheet is provided with the TAC publication to determine recommended posted speed limits based on a roadway’s physical and operational characteristics. A copy of the spreadsheet is included in Appendix C for reference. The TAC analysis applies weighting factors and risk scores to the following physical and operational characteristics in assessing the recommended posted speed requirements: • Road geometry (horizontal) • Road geometry (vertical) • Average lane width • Roadside hazards • Pedestrian exposure • Cyclist exposure • Pavement surface condition • Number of intersections with public roads • Number of intersections with private driveways • Number of interchanges • On-street parking considerations.
The TAC methodology for posted speed assessment is intended to identify roads where an adjustment of posted speeds may be warranted as one of the mitigation measures to improve safety along these corridors, based on the risk factors included in this methodology. However, it is recommended that any of the roads identified for potential posted speed adjustment should be further reviewed to identify factors that may not be captured by the TAC assessment, prior to implementing the adjustment to the posted speeds in these areas.
In addition to the physical / operational characteristics of the road, the TAC methodology also takes into consideration the design speed of the road, in making a recommendation for the posted speed. The intent is to enhance road safety though posted speed limits that match the expectation of drivers for a given roadway and its surrounding area; providing an evaluation tool to assess appropriate posted speed limits based primarily on the classification, function and physical characteristics of a roadway. It is an objective assessment based on measurable criteria. The risks associated with each of the criteria determine the appropriate posted speed; the higher the level of risk, the lower the recommended posted speed limit.
The TAC spreadsheet was used in this TAS as one consideration in determining recommendedDRAFT speed limits, that could be compared to existing posted speeds and 85th percentile (operating) speeds. TAC states that a discrepancy between operating speeds and recommended posted speed limits (from the automated spreadsheet), is indicative of a road where the risks are not apparent to drivers. For any posted speed limits that are lowered or raised, TAC recommends that a review of traffic operations and safety be conducted six to 12 months after implementation of the new speed limit.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 7 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Studies, regarding the relationship between safety performance, after raising or lowering posted speed limits, indicate that changing posted speed limits “has a higher impact on crash severity (i.e., more injury or fatality occurrences as compared to property damage only) rather than impacts to crash frequencies. However, revisions to posted speed limits may also affect the variations of operating speeds along a roadway, which in turn may increase safety risks (e.g., increase in passing collisions or rear-end collisions).
2.4 Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming, Second Edition (Transportation Association of Canada, February 2018)
The publication Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming, Second Edition (CGTC) (TAC, February 2018) provides guidance for the application of traffic calming measures on neighbourhood local / collectors, and urban and rural arterials. The CGTC identifies the purpose of traffic calming as the restoration of streets to their desired function. This function is to provide both mobility and access, but in differing combinations, depending on the specific location, role, and classification of the street. The CGTC also established model procedures for developing and implementing a traffic calming plan in response to community traffic concerns through a 5-stage process. This process is schematically presented in the following figure:
Figure 1: CGTC Traffic Calming Process and Procedures
2.5 Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (Transportation Association of Canada, June 2017)
The publication Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (GDG) (TAC, June 2017) introduces currentDRAFT concepts regarding the integration and relationship of design speeds, operating speeds and posted speeds. Some of the relevant speed considerations outlined in the GDG include the following: • Speed of vehicles on a roadway may depend on several factors including: − Vehicle operating capabilities. − Driver capability, behaviour and comfort.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 8 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
− Physical characteristics of the road. − Roadway surroundings (e.g., urban versus rural). − Weather. − Roadway conditions. − Presence of other vehicles. − Presence of active transportation users (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) − Posted speed limits. • The severity of collisions increases with increasing speeds. However, the relationship of the frequency of collisions is not as evident and is more directly affected by speed variations. • Road design speed should be greater than or equal to the operating speed. • A design speed of 80 km/h and a posted speed of 80 km/h is the normal practice for rural municipal roads in some jurisdictions. • For urban street design (i.e., local and collector roads) the choice of target speed should be consistent with all road user expectations along that particular urban roadway, taking into consideration adjacent land-use, intersection spacing, access conditions, and vulnerable road user activity (i.e., pedestrians and cyclists). The physical roadway design should be used to “enforce” operating speeds by reducing speeds and making the road “self-explaining”. • Posted speed is a speed limitation introduced for reason of safety, economy, traffic control, and government regulatory policy. It is aimed at encouraging drivers to travel at an appropriate speed for surrounding conditions. However, studies have shown that isolated speed limit changes, especially on high-speed roads, are unlikely to be very effective in moderating travel speeds. This is particularly the case if such changes are not also accompanied by increased enforcement and/or changes made to the road environment or road design.
2.6 Speed Management: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, 2012)
Extensive research, completed in 2012 by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), regarding traffic calming on main roads through rural communities (e.g., village and hamlets) identified these types of roads present both an enforcement challenge for the community and a perceived safety issue for the general public. The Manual indicates that trying to solve an identified speeding problem alongDRAFT this type of rural corridor through law enforcement alone generally leads to an increase in compliance with the posted speed followed by a quick return to the speeding behaviour after enforcement is terminated. Acknowledging that this type of roadway not only serves local traffic, but also provides connectivity to the rest of the community at a relatively higher speed, the Manual discusses the use of the following set of measures:
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 9 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
• Installation of traffic control devices to reduce speed: advisory speed signs including pavement marking and speed activated signs. • Changes on road design: lane narrowing and road diet. • Road rehabilitation or reconstruction: horizontal deflections, vertical deflections, and gateways. • Enforcement: traditional and automated enforcement. • Education: public information and educational campaigns.
The Manual recommends measures that can be implemented quickly such as coloured pavement and/or physical lane narrowing and signing, rather than deflection measures that may require road reconstruction. The Manual states that “changing the look and feel of the road, the installation of these type of traffic calming measures transmits to the drivers that the function of the road is changing and may reinforce the need to reduce speed”.
2.7 Speed Concepts: Informational Guide (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-SA-10-001, September 2009)
The publication Speed Concepts: Informational Guide (FHWA-SA-10-001, September 2009) summarizes the effects that the design speed has on operating speeds of roadways and how to set rational speed limits; the publication also provides information regarding traffic calming mitigation measures.
Higher speeds will allow for lower travel times, however, will increase the severity of collisions (i.e., more injury and fatality collisions). The speed-mobility relationship concludes that high operating speeds are considered desirable for shippers and the commercial transportation industry. Thus, roadways that promote mobility (such as highways and freeways) are designed to accommodate high speeds. The speed-safety relationship indicates there is clear evidence that crash severity increases as individual vehicle speeds increase. The publication Killing Speed and Saving Lives (U.K. Department of Transportation, 1987) found that the probability of pedestrian fatalities from vehicle impact speeds of 20, 30, and 40 mph was 5%, 45%, and 85%, respectively.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (FHWA, 2009) notes that posted speeds should be within 5 mph (8 km/h) of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. The 85th percentile (operating) speed is typically used as a starting point for setting a rational speed limit (FHWA-SA-10-001, 2009). However, if existing posted speedDRAFT limits are changed to reflect observed operating speeds, the relationship between design speed and posted speed will be altered. Raising posted speed limits higher than designated design speeds will result in undesirable conditions, since raising speed limits may lead to even higher operating speeds. This act may contribute to a cycle of speed escalation and poorer levels of safety.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 10 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
2.8 Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-RD-98-154, July 1998)
This publication concludes that studies conducted internationally generally show an increase in operating speeds when speed limits are raised on freeways. Finch et al. (1994) found that the mean traffic speeds on a roadway changes by approximately one-fourth (25%) of the change in the posted speed limit. A table, provided in the publication, summarizing the results of studies in numerous developed countries, showing that crash severity and frequency generally declines whenever speed limits are reduced, and conversely that crash severity and frequency generally increase when speed limits are increased.
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 11 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
3.0 Functional, Physical, Social and Natural Environments
Each road within the network has its own unique set of environmental parameters, including the following: • Functional classification of the road. • Urban, semi-urban or rural roadside environment. • Residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, agricultural or natural environmental land uses. • Hard top (asphalt or surface treatment) or gravel surfaces. • Road widths and shoulder widths. • Road alignments (vertical and horizontal). • Road lighting, signage, line markings, traffic controls. • Network travel characteristics. • Need to accommodate travel modes beyond motor vehicles (e.g., pedestrian, cyclist, transit, horse-and-buggy, all-terrain vehicles etc.).
These unique environmental parameters impact the driving behaviour of motorists, including speeds. It is recommended these factors are considered, together with speed studies, in assessing speeding issues within the Township.
A total of forty eight (48) locations in the Township’s road network were reviewed in this TAS. A map of the locations reviewed is included in Appendix A, along with table of select road inventory data.
3.1 Functional Classification of the Road
The functional classification of the roads is important in informing the appropriate target speeds and designs. Arterial roads typically have mobility of travel as their priority function, while access is prioritized for local roads. Collector roads serve a dual function, equally serving the mobility and access functions. The majority of the roads assessed in this study are classified as local roads, with the following exceptions: • Centreline Road – North-south Arterial Road between Mulmur / Clearview Townline and Highway 26. • Batteaux Road – East-west Collector Road between County Road 124 and Concession 6. • Concession 3 and 6 / 7 Sideroad – Collector Road access to Creemore from County Road 42.DRAFT • Hogback Road – North part of the segment is a Collector Road serving residential strip development in New Lowell. • Switzer Street – South part of the segment is a Collector Road (i.e., serving residential strip development in New Lowell and in the area of Creemore Avenue.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 12 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
3.2 Roadside Environment and Land Use
From a posted speed perspective, the Township’s road network can generally be described as follows: • Rural Roads - As shown on the map in Appendix A, the rural roads in the study area generally have the statutory default posted speeds of 80 km/h, although there are a limited number of roads that are posted with lower speeds. The lower posted speeds reflect roads that have an increased local function to provide access, with traffic mobility being a secondary function. However, many of the rural roads have been designed to accommodate significantly higher speeds than the posted speeds, and this factor, together with the rural nature of these roads, is conducive to operating speeds exceeding posted speeds in these areas. In this respect, the TAC analysis provides some guidance into recommended posted speeds relative to safety risks, as well as the degree to which the roads are ‘self-explaining’ from a speed perspective.
• Urban and Semi-Urban Roads - As also shown on the map in Appendix A, the urban and semi-urban roads in the study area have posted or default speeds of 50 km/h, with one road (i.e., Devil’s Glen entrance) posted at 30 km/h. While a default speed of 50 km/h has historically been used in these areas, lower speeds may be considered for some areas to respond to traffic calming issues, the sensitivity of types of adjacent land uses, impacts on alternate travel modes (pedestrian, cyclist, transit), subdivision designs and road network considerations.
With a greater emphasis on multi-modal traffic and Vision Zero safety policies, some municipalities have been lowering speeds in residential areas below the standard default speeds. This has generally been the case in larger municipalities, where speed issues are intensified by the higher traffic volumes. The lowering of posted speeds in urban areas also may result in the following challenges: • Increased need to respond to requests for traffic calming measures, since the speed threshold established in the policy will be more likely to be exceeded. • Increased expectation for traffic monitoring and enforcement, to respond to the lower speed limit.
If posted speeds are reduced below 50 km/h in urban and semi-urban areas it is recommended that such reductions be based on an engineering study to assess the need for a speedDRAFT reduction and traffic calming requirements. Lower posted speeds may be implemented on a trial basis, with follow-up monitoring to assess their effectiveness.
The above noted context has been taken into consideration in analyzing the existing posted speeds for the roads reviewed in this TAS.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 13 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
The roads considered in this TAS are primarily rural, however parts of the following roads were also noted to accommodate residential strip development (i.e., semi-urban environment), raising the potential for conflict between users walking or cycling along the roads or for turning movements at driveways. The density of driveways is therefore an important consideration in establishing appropriate target speeds in these areas of heightened conflict potential. Parts of the following roads were noted to accommodate semi-urban or urban development along their corridors: • Switzer Street • Creemore Avenue • 36/37 Sideroad • Bateaux Road • Centre Street • Milltown Road • William Street
The traffic assessment has considered the increased potential for conflict along these roads in recommending an appropriate target speed strategy for these roads.
3.3 Engineered Physical Road Attributes
The physical attributes of the roads have a significant influence on driving speeds and on safety along the roads in the network, including the following considerations: • Gravel roads have longer stopping distance requirements and typically lower traffic volumes, as compared to hard top roads. • Hard top roads may increase traffic speeds as compared to gravel roads. • Road widths should be designed to reflect the traffic volumes, traffic type (e.g., trucks), traffic speeds, roadside environment and functional classification of the road. Target speeds should be a consideration in road designs, in addition to municipal road standards and posted speeds. • Roads with horizontal or vertical curves, while potentially moderating speeds to some degree, also increase collision potential due to the reduced sight lines and misjudgments of appropriate speeds. Roads that are relatively flat and straight are conducive to higher operating speeds. • Obstructions within the clear zone of the roads (e.g., vegetation encroachment onto the ROW) decreases the sight lines at intersections and increases the potential for collisionsDRAFT along the corridor. • Implementation of appropriate lighting, signage, line marking, and traffic controls play a significant role in maintaining the safety of travel along the roads.
The traffic assessment has considered the engineered physical road attributes in recommending an appropriate target speed strategy for these roads.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 14 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
3.3.1 Gravel Road Considerations
Nine (9) of the roads in the study area have gravel surfaces, with 85th percentile operating speeds and traffic volumes summarized in the following table.
Table 1: Gravel Roads in the Study Area 85th Percentile Traffic Volume Traffic Speed Posted (vph) (ID) Road Segment (km/h) Speed NB or SB or NB or SB or EB WB EB WB km/h County Road 9 (1) Lavender to Mulmur / 94 116 72 70 80 Hill Road Clearview Townline 15 / 16 (2) Concession 11 Sideroad to 79 76 73 67 80 Ewing Road County Road (4) Concession 10 91 to 33 / 34 386 399 81 77 80 Sideroad Mulmur / Clearview (10) Concession 5 176 155 88 83 80 Townline to 6 / 7 Sideroad County Road 9 (29) Creemore to Switzer 39 32 65 65 80 Avenue Street Switzer Street (30) Creemore to Concession 48 49 85 84 80 Avenue 7 Highway 26 to (35) 27 / 28 Fairgrounds 58 69 63 61 80 Sideroad Road North Fairgrounds (36) 27 / 28 Road North to 74 76 52 53 80 Sideroad DRAFTConcession 6 30 / 31 (43) Concession Sideroad to 33 363 84 80 10 / 34 Sideroad County Road (45) Devil’s Glen 124 to South 269 37 30 Entrance Road
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 15 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
The traffic volumes on the gravel roads are generally within the typical range expected for this surface type, with the exception of Concession 10 (from County Road 91 to 33 / 34 Sideroad), which has higher than normal volumes for a gravel road. It is recommended that this road be considered for a hardtop surface to minimize maintenance requirements and maintain an acceptable surface. Traffic speeds can be expected to increase after the surface is upgraded and this should be accounted for in the road improvement designs for this area.
Creemore Avenue also has operating speeds that are marginally above the default speed, however the traffic volumes on this road are very low and therefore traffic speeds are considered to be acceptable.
3.3.2 Road and Shoulder Width Considerations
According to the Township’s Road Needs Study (Burnside, 2020) the hard top road widths in the rural areas have widths ranging between 6 m and 9 m (excluding shoulders), with the majority having widths of 6.7 m. The Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads (MTO, 1991) recommends the following road widths: • <499 /AADT – 6.0 m travels lanes + 1.5 m shoulders each side. • 400 to 999 AADT – 6.5 m travel lanes + 1.5 m shoulders each side. • 1000 to 1999 AADT – 6.5 m travel lanes + 2.5 m shoulders each side. • 2000 to 2999 AADT – 7.0 m travel lanes + 2.5 m shoulders each side. • 3000 to 3999 – 7.0 m travel lanes + 3.0 m shoulders each side.
The Township of Clearview Engineering Standards (2016) provide the road cross sections currently being used in the Township, including the following: • STD-R1A (Open Ditch) – 7.0 m asphalt + 1.5 m shoulder / rounding (see Figure 2). • STD-R2 – (Gutter) – 7.0 m asphalt with curb & gutter (see Figure 3). • STD-R3 – (Curb & Gutter) – 8.5 m asphalt with curb & gutter, 20 m ROW (see Figure 4). • STD-R4 – (Curb & Gutter) – 8.5 m asphalt with curb & gutter, 26 m ROW (see Figure 5). DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 16 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Figure 2: Road Cross Section – Open Ditch Standard
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 17 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Figure 3: Road Cross Section – Curb & Gutter – 7.0 m Asphalt
Figure 4: Road Cross Section – Curb & Gutter – 85 m Asphalt, 20 m ROW
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 18 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Figure 5: Road Cross Section – Curb & Gutter – 8.5 m Asphalt, 26 m ROW
It is recommended that the road and shoulder widths be reviewed for roads that have operating speeds that are more than 10 km/h over the posted speed limits. Where the road and shoulder widths do not meet these guidelines, road widening should be considered at the time of the next major rehabilitation, particularly for roads that also accommodate cyclist or ATV travel.
3.3.3 Vertical and Horizontal Curve Considerations
The presence of horizontal and / or vertical curves along road corridors can have a significant impact on the safety of traffic operations, particularly when operating speeds are higher than posted speeds. It is recommended the travel speeds be reviewed for areas with significantDRAFT horizontal or vertical curves on all roads that have operating speeds exceeding 10 km/h over the posted speeds. The review should take into consideration the potential for speed differentials along the corridor, sight distances and access operations in the areas of these curves, as well as road and shoulder width requirements. Speed warning signs and curve delineation signs should be reviewed at critical locations to ensure that they meet the requirements of the OTM and of the guidelines recommended by the TAC.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 19 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
3.4 Road Network and User Characteristics
3.4.1 Road Network
Most of the roads reviewed in this TAS are local roads, intended to facilitate access to adjacent lands and communities within the Township. However, some Township roads are located parallel to County Roads and therefore provide an alternate route to the upper tier arterial roads in those areas. This is particularly the case with north-south roads, which attract traffic that is travelling through the Township to Wasaga Beach, Collingwood and other points to the north. Since it is difficult to restrict the degree of through traffic using these routes, it is recommended that the road designs and classifications be adjusted to reflect this reality, to maintain safe operations in those areas.
3.4.2 Road Users
The Township’s road ROW network accommodates a variety of users including motor vehicles (cars and trucks), buses, pedestrians, cyclists, horse-and-buggies, and ATVs.
Truck Traffic and Agricultural Vehicles
Roads with truck-generating land uses (e.g., gravel pits or intensive agricultural operations) should be designed to accommodate the type and volume of trucks and farm vehicles generated.
Transit Vehicles
Clearview Transit operates a local transit route in Stayner, which also connects to Wasaga Beach and a local transit route in Creemore, and connects between Stayner and Creemore (i.e., via Centreline Road). The Creemore route is currently not operating due to COVID-19. Simcoe County’s Lynx Transit runs between Wasaga Beach – Stayner – Angus but follows County Roads. It is recommended that target speeds on roads that serve transit take into consideration the transit operations in those areas, including the potential for pedestrians accessing stops.
Pedestrian and Cyclist Traffic
In urban areas, the existence of sidewalks or trails is an important consideration in establishing DRAFTa safe target speed. Where possible, pedestrian traffic should be separated from vehicular traffic. Local roads in urban areas may be a shared motor vehicle / cyclist facility, however consideration should be given to establishing cycle lanes on higher traffic roads (i.e., collector roads or arterial roads).
In rural areas consideration may be given to establishing paved shoulders to accommodate cyclist traffic and other users (e.g., off-road vehicles (ORVs)) where the
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 20 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
demand exists. Book 18 of The OTM recommends that “bicycle accessible shoulder” facilities provide 1.5 m paved shoulders, edge lines along the edge of the travel lanes and bicycle route signs along the corridor. The Collingwood Cycling Club currently has routes that follow some of the roads in this current study, including the following: • 36 / 37 Sideroad • Bateaux Road • Concession 10 • Concession 6 • Fairgrounds Road North • Fairgrounds Road South • Riverside Drive
All-terrain Vehicles
The Township recently passed By-law 20-71 to delineate the roads that allow or prohibit all-terrain vehicle (ATV) travel, as shown on Figure 6.
Figure 6: ATV Restrictions on Township Roads (By-Law 20-71)
DRAFT
Forty-two (42) of the roads in this current study allow ORV travel, while such travel is prohibited on six (6) of the roads. The roads with a prohibition of ORVs travel include the following: • 6 / 7 Sideroad
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 21 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
• Lavender Hill Road • Riverside Drive • Concession 5 • Concession 6 • Fairgrounds Road South
Farmers can operate an ATV or ORVs on the travelled portion of most Provincial Highways and municipal roads for “agricultural purposes” under an exemption outlined in the Highway Traffic Act.
Ontario Federation of ATV Clubs has trails located along the following roads that are included in this study: • Hogback Road • Sunnidale / Tosorontio Townline • Concession 12 • Concession 7
By-law 20-71 requires ORV’s to travel at maximum speeds of 20 km/h where posted speeds are 50 km/h or less, and to travel at maximum speeds of 50 km/h where posted speeds are greater than 50 km/h. These speeds are significantly below the speeds of other motor vehicles travelling on these roads. Given these speed differentials and the space requirements to accommodate ORVs, it is recommended that various engineering parameters (e.g., shoulder widths, sight distances, etc.) be reviewed along the roads where ORVs are allowed, to ensure that these parameters are adequate to accommodate these vehicles. Typical considerations have been suggested by a municipal insurance company to minimize the municipality’s risk in accommodating ORVs on their roads, as delineated in Table 2. Increased OPP or By-law Enforcement should also be provided to ensure compliance with the requirements associated with speed, adherence to shoulders and required licensing.
Table 2: Considerations for Reviews to Minimize Risk in Accommodating ORVs on Municipal Roads ATV / ORVs Review should consider Discussion Operation Ensure that any fixed object hazards If the shoulder is wide are continuously visible on the DRAFTenough to allow operation of approach to the hazard so that the the ATV / ORVs on the ATV / ORVs operator can visually Road shoulder, identify all fixed detect and recognize the hazard Shoulder object hazards on the ahead and make a decision on the shoulder (e.g., guiderail, appropriate action (slow or stop the bridge abutment, etc.) ATV / ORVs and ensure the way is clear) rather than make an evasive
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 22 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
ATV / ORVs Review should consider Discussion Operation maneuver which may be a swerve into the path of a motor vehicle to avoid hazard. Look at the condition of the entire travel portion of the pavement identifying: bumps, depressions, potholes, ruts, surface discontinuities and other distortions If operation on the shoulder that may cause the driver of the Road Surface is not possible, determine ATV / ORVs to swerve potentially into Paved the the path of motor vehicles to avoid condition of the pavement. bumps, depressions, potholes, etc., at the edge of pavement and likewise, the driver of a motor vehicle may also swerve into the path of the ATV / ORVs to avoid bumps, depressions, potholes, etc. Determine the frequency in which bumps, depressions, potholes, ruts, surface discontinuities (washboards) and other distortions return to the road surface after maintenance grading is complete and will these bumps, depressions, potholes, ruts, Road Surface Determine the condition of surface discontinuities (washboards) Unpaved the road surfaces. be an issue causing the ATV / ORVs operator to drive an irregular path to avoid bumps, depressions, potholes, ruts, surface discontinuities (washboards) and create a potential for conflict with motor vehicles. Identify other vulnerable road users (cyclists, Determine the frequency of use by Highways pedestrians, and seniors) pedestrians and cyclists and all without DRAFT using the roadway or potential conflicts including sight Sidewalks shoulder for walking obstructions. or cycling.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 23 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
ATV / ORVs Review should consider Discussion Operation Sharp curves and steep hills are two examples of sight obstructions where the driver of a motor vehicle may not see an ATV/ORV ahead. If a Determine if there are any significant speed differential exists, Narrow sight obstructions on the the driver of the motor vehicle may Roadway roadway. not have enough sight distance or sufficient space (due to on-coming motor vehicles) to implement an evasive maneuver to avoid the ATV / ORVs. Determine if street lighting is Operating ATV / ORVs at adequate for safe operation of the night may increase potential ATV / ORVs along the curb conflicts with other motor at night. Also, illuminated or digital vehicles on the road. Time of Day signage at businesses may be a Operating ATV / ORVs at distraction for drivers who may be night may be a disturbance focusing their attention on the sign in otherwise quiet rather than what is occurring along neighbourhoods. the curb. Determine if snow banks at intersections and driveways would be kept at a height that would not Operation of ATV / ORVs in Time of Year obstruct the sight triangle at an Winter. intersection or driveway and offer a clear view of an approaching ATV / ORVs. Adding another moving object hazard (ATV / ORVs) to areas with Downtown Identify areas with high high pedestrian movement, high Core Area or pedestrian movement, high volume of on-street parking other similar volume of on-street parking turnover, transit stops, dedicated areas of the turnover, transit stops, bicycle lanes, etc., may increase Township dedicated bicycle lanes, etc. potential conflicts between motor DRAFTvehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and ATV / ORVs.
3.4.3 Complete Streets
Clearview Township does not have a road design guideline document, rather, road designs are based on the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. The
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 24 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Township’s Official Plan notes that Arterial Roads shall have a minimum ROW width of 26 to 40 m, Collector Roads shall have a minimum ROW of 20 to 26 m and Local Roads are to have a minimum ROW of 20 m.
Figure 7 illustrates a typical rural or semi-urban cross-section for Township Roads and Figure 8 illustrates a typical urban cross-section. The rural and semi-urban cross-section accommodates the ROW needs of ditch drainage, while the urban cross section provides for a pedestrian zone and planting zone. Current rural or semi-urban designs do not necessarily provide designated space for cycling, pedestrians or, streetscaping features, all of which impact the “complete street” functionality of the ROW and its sensitivity to speed-related issues.
Figure 7: Typical Rural Cross-section or Semi-Urban Cross-section (20 m ROW)
Figure 8: Typical Urban Cross-section (20 m ROW) DRAFT
There is an opportunity to better accommodate active transportation utilizing the Township’s Road system, by supplementing the design of Township Roads to include a
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 25 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
complete streets approach that identifies space within road ROW for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly within urbanized areas.
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) According to the Toronto Centre of provides overall direction for planning and Active Transportation a Complete development in the Province of Ontario. The Street is: PPS provides support for a context-sensitive approach to road design, stating “A Complete Street is designed for all “transportation and land use considerations ages, abilities and modes of travel, shall be integrated at all stages of the where safe and comfortable access for planning process” pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and people with disabilities is integrated into transportation planning”.
It is recommended that the Township develop a Complete Streets Policy and Guidelines which include the following: • Application of Complete Streets to all projects including new projects, retrofit / reconstruction projects, and repair / maintenance and / or other projects for the entire ROWs. • Development of a comprehensive, integrated, connected network to benefit all users and modes. • Recognizing that the context of the roadway and the surrounding community dictates what Complete Streets elements will be accommodated. • Categorize the Township’s roads into contextual classes, prioritizing the roles and functions of the roadway for each road class. • Identification of the desirable operating conditions such as appropriate speed and roadside safety.
The intent of complete streets guidelines is to provide a framework for design approaches that meet the engineering requirements and accommodation of alternative roadway elements and modes. The design process should follow the key decision steps: DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 26 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Complete Streets Design Decision Process
1. Define the Roadway Environment: How does the roadway affect / interact with the adjacent land uses and environmental features? 2. Define Roadway Function: What modes of travel and boulevard elements are a high priority and explicitly accommodated? 3. Define Design Speed: What is the vision for the roadway and what is the appropriate operating and design speeds given the roadway environment and roadway function? 4. Define Typical Cross-section: Select roadway elements that comprise the cross-section based on preferred roadway typologies. 5. Define Design Domain: Select parameters for design elements that meet engineering minimums and are consistent with the design vision and speeds (e.g. lane widths, clear zone, intersection radii).
It is recommended that the Township review the current designs of the roads within their network to assess whether they meet Complete Streets requirements. In particular, some roads in the rural areas have shoulders that may be lower than desirable to accommodate the traffic volumes, traffic speeds and / or multi-modal traffic types that utilize these ROWs. Consideration should be given to separating different traffic modes as much as possible, via the provision of pedestrian sidewalks in urban and semi-urban areas, bike lanes along higher speed / volume corridors in urban areas and via paved shoulder bicycle facilities in rural environments.
4.0 Collision Assessment
The number of collisions on the roads in the study area have been reviewed for the time period 2015 through 2020. The intent of this analysis is to identify if there are traffic-related issues that may warrant additional study, since the causative factors of the collisions were not provided as part of this current study. The numbers of collisions and collision rate on the roads in the study area are summarized in Table 3. The collision rate (expressed as collisions per million vehicle kilometres of travel) is provided to account for the varying traffic volumes and road lengths, allowing for a comparison of collision potential on the roads in the study area.
Table 3: Collision Summary DRAFTNumber of Road AADT (vpd) Collision Rate Collisions Centreline Road 33 1808 0.69
Klondike Road 19 1967 1.35
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 27 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Number of Road AADT (vpd) Collision Rate Collisions 3 / 4 Sideroad 17 711 1.00 Sunnidale
Concession 10 N 16 995 0.96
Concession 12 14 3183 0.28
Fairgrounds Road 12 1055 0.69 South Concession 6 S 10 542 1.53 Nottawasaga Sunnidale / 8 2234 0.27 Tosorontio Townline
Hogback Road 7 371 1.70
27 / 28 Sideroad 6 139 2.89
Fairgrounds Road 6 1093 0.46 North Concession 5 S 5 331 0.65 Nottawasaga
Riverside Drive 5 840 0.88
36 / 37 Sideroad 3 515 0.35
Concession 7 3 279 0.53 Sunnidale
Concession 9 3 951 0.16
Creemore Avenue 3 100 3.25
3 / 4 Sideroad 3 517 0.78 Nottawasaga Devil's GlenDRAFT Entrance 3 578 3.94 Batteaux Road 2 554 0.71
Switzer Street 2 516 0.81
6 / 7 Sideroad 2 666 1.25 Nottawasaga
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 28 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Number of Road AADT (vpd) Collision Rate Collisions Concession 6 N 1 982 0.06 Nottawasaga
Lavender Hill 1 210 0.75
Milltown Road 1 268 2.09
Concession 11 S 0 155 0.00 Nottawasaga
Centre Street 0 570 0.00
William Street 0 826 0.00
The collision rate for all roads in Ontario was 1.45 in 2017, however for secondary highways it has been typically in the range of 1.0 to 1.5. These rates include collisions that occur along the road corridors and at intersections. The length of the road and traffic volumes should also be reviewed to give some context to the collision rate data, since these have a significant impact on these metrics (i.e., the absolute value of the collision rate may not be indicative of a collision hot spot if the road is short and / or the traffic volumes are very low). The actual number of collisions is a useful comparator of the magnitude of safety issues which may be present on any particular road. The roads with collision rates greater than 1.5 collisions per million vehicle kilometres are identified (shaded) in the Table, however it is suggested that any safety analysis consider the collision rate, the number of collisions and the traffic volumes in assessing this data, to identify if they are indicative of safety concerns in these areas.
Information on the types of collisions was not available for this current study and therefore their causative factors could not be established, particularly whether speeding was identified as a causative factor. Collisions that are due to other factors (e.g., animal collisions, weather or road conditions, turning movements, etc.) may not directly relate to speeding as being a significant cause. Therefore, it is recommended that the number and type of collisions be reviewed for all corridors before implementing traffic calming measures, ratherDRAFT than using a collision threshold number to determine need.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 29 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
5.0 Speed Assessment
5.1 General Considerations in Speed Assessment
This TAS report provides a review of traffic operations on specific roads within the Township, based partly on a comparative analysis of traffic operating speeds versus posted speeds, in accordance with the CTCP. Additional considerations have also been analyzed through the application of the TAC Automated Speed Limit Guidelines spreadsheet (2009). Based on the analysis criteria applied in these methodologies, this TAS provides recommendations for posted speeds for the roads reviewed.
While the analysis in this TAS provides a good initial indication of speed concerns and / or the appropriateness of posted speeds, other factors may require more detailed consideration. Where the recommendations in this TAS result in a modification to the existing posted speeds, it is recommended that the Township complete further detailed review to confirm if the criteria applied are sufficient or whether other factors should also be considered. In this respect, the ultimate posted speed for any road should reflect the unique needs of that road, as confirmed by the detailed review.
Further detailed future study work may be required, but which is beyond the scope of this current assignment, to determine the preferred mitigation work (i.e., which may include modification to posted speeds). Such future work may include: • Detailed collision analysis to verify the extent of safety issues. • Completion of speed profiles to confirm speed variations along the corridor. • Traffic infiltration study to confirm the potential for traffic diversion resulting from modifications to posted speeds. • Determination of the viability and effectiveness of implementing alternative traffic management measures (e.g., increased enforcement, signage, community safety zones, radar speed boards, modifications to traffic controls, etc.). • Determination of the viability of implementing physical changes to achieve improved consistency between operating speeds and posted speeds (e.g., modification to lane / shoulder widths or lane usage, improved geometrics (horizontal and vertical), traffic calming measures, improvements to alternate routes or alternate travel modes, and changes to adjacent land use, etc.). • Review of site-specific considerations (e.g., pedestrian crossing volumes, vehicle types, accessDRAFT conditions, intersection spacing, and sight distance, etc.).
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 30 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
5.2 Assessment of Traffic Speed, Traffic Volume and Vehicle Classification
5.2.1 Traffic Data Collected
The following traffic data was provided for this TAS: • Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts of traffic speeds, volumes and vehicle classifications, provided by Ontario Traffic Inc., undertaken at forty (40) locations for a 7-day period from either June 4 to June 10, 2020 or June 5 to June 11, 2020. • Speed and volume data obtained from the Township’s radar speed signs, undertaken at eight (8) locations (one direction only) for the period of sign deployment (i.e., 70 to 107 days with the exception of Milltown Road which was only deployed for 15 days).
The posted speed, average speed, 85th percentile speed and pace speed for each road segment is summarized in Appendix D. The pace speed is the 10 km/h speed range representing the speeds of the largest percentage of vehicles in the traffic stream.
5.2.2 Areas With High Operating Speeds Relative to Posted Speeds
As noted previously, the CTCP indicates that roads with operating speeds that are 10 km/h or more above the posted speed may be considered further to determine their needs for traffic calming measures. The roads in the study area that meet this exceedance threshold are summarized in the following table.
Table 4: Roads with Operating Speed Exceeding 10 km/h Over Posted Speed 85th Percentile Speed Exceedance of Posted Posted Speed Road From To Speed (km/h) (km/h) Direction1 / Direction 2 County Road Centreline Concession 7 29 / 14 80 DRAFT10 Road Creemore Switzer Street County Road 9 26 / 29 50 Avenue
Centreline Concession 9 County Road 9 28 / 15 80 Road
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 31 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
85th Percentile Speed Exceedance of Posted Posted Speed Road From To Speed (km/h) (km/h) Direction1 / Direction 2 Centreline Warrington Concession 7 26 / 19 80 Road Road
3 / 4 Sideroad Concession 9 County Road 9 24 / 25 80 Sunnidale
3 / 4 Sideroad County Road 9 Concession 2 12 / 25 80 Sunnidale
Hogback Road Webster Road Concession 2 23 / 16 80
Fairgrounds 30/31 Sideroad 33/34 Sideroad 23 / 13 80 Road N.
Fairgrounds County Road 30/31 Sideroad 22 / 19 80 Road N. 91
Hogback Road Concession 2 County Road 9 22 / 15 80
Klondike Park Wasaga Beach Highway 26 22 / 9 80 Road Town Limits
County Road Concession 12 County Road 7 14 / 21 80 10
15 / 16 Riverside Drive County Road 9 19 / 9 70 DRAFTSideroad Centreline County Road 9 Concession 7 5 / 19 80 Road Sunnidale / County Road Tosorontio 6 / 7 Sideroad 19 / 17 80 10 Townline
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 32 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
85th Percentile Speed Exceedance of Posted Posted Speed Road From To Speed (km/h) (km/h) Direction1 / Direction 2 Centreline Concession 2 County Road 9 16 / 18 80 Road
Centreline Warrington Highway 26 15 / 16 80 Road Road
Klondike Park County Road Concession 12 15 / 16 80 Road 10
3 / 4 Sideroad County Road Centreline 16 / 15 80 Nottawasaga 42 Road
Fairgrounds 15 / 16 County Road 16 / 9 80 Road S. Sideroad 91 Mulmur / Centreline Clearview Concession 2 15 / 5 80 Road Townline County Road 15 / 16 Concession 6 15 / 8 80 91 Sideroad
County Road Batteaux Road Concession 6 14 / 14 50 124
31 / 31 27 / 28 Concession 6 13 / 14 80 Sideroad Sideroad
Poplar 33 / 34 Concession 6 10/7 80 DRAFTSideroad Sideroad Creemore 10 50 Avenue
As shown in Table 4, twenty-six (26) of the forty-eight (48) road segments in the study area had speeds that exceeded the 10 km/h threshold, meeting the Township’s warrant for further consideration of traffic calming needs. Eleven (11) of these segments had
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 33 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
exceedances of over 20 km/h, with the highest exceedance recorded at 29 km/h over the posted speed on Concession 7 between County Road 10 and Centreline Road.
5.2.3 Areas with Low Operating Speeds Relative to Posted Speeds
As noted previously, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (FHWA, 2009) notes that it is desirable to have posted speeds within 8 km/h of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Where posted speeds are significantly higher than operating speeds the following issues may result: • May create speed differentials between vehicles, creating passing issues or rear-end collision issues. • May promote an increase in speeds that may not be compatible with the risks and conditions along the corridor. • May reflect an inconsistency between the posted speed and the safe speed perceived by the motorist.
The roads in the study area that were found to have operating speeds of 8 km/h or more below the posted speeds are summarized in the following table:
Table 5: Roads with Operating Speeds 8 km/h or Greater Below Operating Speed Magnitude of 85th Percentile Speed Below Posted Speed Road From To Posted Speed (km/h) (km/h) Direction1 / Direction 2 27 / 28 Fairgrounds Concession 6 -18 / -28 80 Sideroad Road N.
15 / 16 Concession 11 Ewing Road -7 / -13 80 Sideroad
33 / 34 Poplar Concession 10 +4 / -13 80 Sideroad Sideroad
27 / 28 Fairgrounds Highway 26 -15 / -17 80 SideroadDRAFT Road N
Creemore County Road 9 Switzer Street -15 / -15 80 Avenue
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 34 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Magnitude of 85th Percentile Speed Below Posted Speed Road From To Posted Speed (km/h) (km/h) Direction1 / Direction 2
William Street -14 50
Mulmur / Lavender Hill County Road 9 Clearview -8 / -10 80 Road Townline 36 / 37 County Road Concession 6 -7 / -9 80 Sideroad 124
County Road 33 / 34 Concession 10 +1 / -9 80 91 Sideroad
County Road County Road Concession 10 -8 / -3 80 124 91
As shown in the above table, ten (10) of the forty-eight (48) road segments in the study area had operational speeds that were 8 km/h or more below the posted speed. Three (3) of these segments had operating speeds that were 15 km/h or more below the posted speeds, with the greatest differential recorded at 28 km/h below posted on 27 / 28 Sideroad between Fairgrounds Road N and Concession 6.
It is recommended that the causative factors contributing to the low operating speeds be reviewed to determine risk factors, to assess if a lower posted speed should be applied in these areas.
5.2.4 Assessment of Operating Speeds Relative to TAC Guidelines
The recommended posted speeds were calculated based on TAC’s Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits, for comparison with the existing posted speeds. The TAC analysis was used to assess the total risk score of various physical factors, togetherDRAFT with the road design speed, in assessing the posted speeds for the sections reviewed. However, it is noted that the TAC analysis does not address the type of traffic (e.g., high truck volumes, agricultural machinery, ORVs, etc.) that may also be a factor in the establishment of appropriate posted speeds, when considered on a site-specific basis.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 35 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
The roads in the study area that were found to have posted speeds that exceed the speed recommended by the TAC analysis are summarized in the following table:
Table 6: Roads with Posted Speeds That Exceed TAC Recommended Posted Speed TAC Posted Posted Speed Road From To Speed (Operating Comments (km/h) Speed) (km/h) Operating speed already reduced Mulmur / due to gravel Lavender County 70 Clearview 80 surface. Hill Road Road 9 (70 / 72) Townline Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h, as per Concession 33 / 34 Poplar 70 TAC risk analysis 80 10 Sideroad Sideroad (67 / 84) and engineering review of operating conditions. Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h, as per Hogback Webster Concession 70 TAC risk analysis 80 Road Road 2 (96 / 103) and engineering review of operating conditions. Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h, as per Hogback Concession County 70 TAC risk analysis DRAFT80 Road 2 Road 9 (95 / 102) and engineering review. Of operating conditions.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 36 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
TAC Posted Posted Speed Road From To Speed (Operating Comments (km/h) Speed) (km/h) Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h as per 36 / 37 County Concession 70 TAC risk analysis 80 Sideroad Road 124 6 (71 / 73) and engineering review of operating conditions.
As shown in the above table it is recommended the posted speed be reduced from 80 km/h to 70 km/h for four (4) roads, based on the TAC analysis and the engineering review of operating conditions.
There are additional roads where the operating speed was recorded at 8 km/h or more below the posted speed, but for which the risks considered in the TAC criteria do not provide sufficient justification to reduce the posted speeds. These roads are summarized in the following table:
Table 7: Roads with Low Operating Speeds but Insufficient Justification for a Posted Speed Reduction Operating Speed Road From To (Posted Comments Speed) (km/h) Mulmur / Lavender County Reduction in operating speed Clearview 70 (80) Hill Road Road 9 due to gravel surface. Townline Concession 15 / 16 Ewing Reduction in operating speed 67 (80) 11 Sideroad Road due to gravel surface. Reduction in operating speed Concession County County DRAFT72 (80) due to poor pavement 10 Road 124 Road 91 surface. Concession County 33 / 34 Reduction in operating speed 71 (80) 10 Road 91 Sideroad due to gravel surface.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 37 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Speed Road From To (Posted Comments Speed) (km/h) Creemore County Switzer 65 / 65 Reduction in operating speed Avenue Road 9 Street (80) due to gravel surface.
27 / 28 Fairgrounds 65 / 63 Reduction in operating speed Highway 26 Sideroad Road N. (80) due to gravel surface.
27 / 28 Fairgrounds Concession 62 / 52 Reduction in operating speed Sideroad Road N. 6 (80) due to gravel surface.
William Reduction in operating speed Pine Street Oak Street 36 (50) Street due to radar speed sign.
As shown in the above table the segments with lower than normal operating speeds may be a result of the condition of the surface (i.e., gravel or poor hard top) or may be due to the radar speed sign being in place. The existing posted speeds for these roads are considered appropriate for the conditions.
5.2.5 Basis of Posted Speed Recommendations
The establishment of posted speeds is a matter of judgement, which may be informed through a comparative analysis of the posted speeds and the operating speeds. In addition, the analysis in this TAS has taken into account various risk factors related to posted speeds, using the methodology set out by the TAC (Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speeds, TAC, 2009). The existing posted speeds are assumed to reflect current regulatory policy, which is subject to future modification through the consideration of the unique individual needs of each road, as additional information comes forward.
A significant number of the existing posted speeds in the Township do not meet the criteria used for analysis in this study (i.e., either the preferred relationship of operating speeds to posted speeds or the speeds recommended through the TAC analysis). The recommendations for posted speeds made in this TAS report have been based on engineering judgement, taking into consideration the results of these analyses, as well other factors.DRAFT Where applicable, recommendations have been made for the implementation of increased speed management (e.g., radar speed boards, police enforcement, road watch signage, community safety zones, etc.) and / or ongoing monitoring of speeds, speed variations, collision data and traffic infiltration.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 38 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Some of the other factors that should be taken into account in the setting of posted speeds, and which are not directly accounted for in either the speed / volume analysis or in the TAC analysis, include the following: • Road maintenance. • Potential diversion of traffic that may have negative impacts on road network operations (e.g., traffic infiltration through residential neighbourhoods or traffic utilizing Township roads in lieu of County or Provincial roads). • Impacts on traffic controls (i.e., signals, stop controls, pedestrian crossings). • Site specific land-use considerations (schools, homes for the aged, institutional facilities, etc.). • Transit routes, truck routes, emergency access routes, school bus routes and alternate routes for such uses. • Alternate travel routes in the event of road closures due to weather or accidents. • Other road network considerations and / or municipal policies.
The above considerations are beyond the scope of this TAS, however some cursory observations have been noted, where identified, to provide context to the review of the posted speeds.
The speed data resulting from our analysis is summarized in Appendix D for the roads reviewed. Further review and monitoring are recommended for a number of the roads to confirm the long-term ongoing acceptability of the existing or proposed posted speeds, taking into consideration factors other than those considered in this study, as well as ongoing review of collision data. In this respect, the analysis in this TAS is intended to provide information to council to assist in understanding the appropriateness of the posted speeds for the roads under review, to develop traffic calming mitigation measures or more general policies related to traffic calming or posted speeds within the Township.
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 39 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Our analysis of the operating speeds on the roads under review are summarized in the following table:
Table 8: Summary of Speed Analysis for Select Roads Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) • 210 vpd ADT • Gravel road Lavender Hill Road from • ATV prohibited 1 County Road 9 to Mulmur / 72 / 70 80 70 • >8 km/h below posted speed Clearview Townline • TAC recommendation 70 km/h • Recommend a posted speed reduction based on risk analysis and engineering considerations • 155 vpd ADT Concession 11 from 15 / 16 • Gravel road 2 73 / 67 80 80 Sideroad to Ewing Road • >8 km/h below posted speed, potential differential speeds • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 288 vpd ADT • >8 km/h below posted speed Concession 10 from County 3 72 / 77 80 80 • Cycling route Road 124 to County Road 91 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that the existing posted speed be maintained • 785 vpd ADT • Gravel road; traffic volume is high for a gravel surface. • > 8 km/h below posted • Cycling route Concession 10 from County 4 81 / 71 80 80 • Recommend clearing of vegetation within ROW Road 91 to 33 / 34 Sideroad • Recommend upgrade to hardtop surface • TAC recommendation 70 km/h • Recommend that the existing posted speed be maintained if surface upgraded to hardtop • 1910 vpd ADT • >8 km/h below posted, potential differential speeds • Cycling route Concession 10 from 33 / 34 • Recommend clearing of vegetation within ROW 5 84 / 67 80 70 Sideroad to Poplar Sideroad • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • TAC recommendation 70 km/h DRAFT• Recommend a posted speed reduction based on risk analysis and engineering considerations
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 40 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) • 1118 vpd ADT Concession 6 N Nottawasaga • Cycling route; ATV prohibited 6 from Poplar Sideroad to 33 / 34 90 / 87 80 80 • Recommend clearing of vegetation within ROW Sideroad • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 846 vpd ADT Concession 6 N Nottawasaga • Cycling route; ATV prohibited 7 from 33 / 34 Sideroad to 93 / 94 80 80 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements County Road 91 • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 542 vpd ADT Concession 6 S Nottawasaga • Cycling route; ATV prohibited 8 from County Road 91 to 15 / 16 95 / 88 80 80 • Significant collision rate Sideroad • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 840 vpd ADT • Cycling route; ATV prohibited Riverside Drive from 15 / 16 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements 9 89 / 79 70 70 Sideroad to County Road 9 • Recommend to review signage at horizontal curves • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 331 vpd ADT • Gravel road Concession 5 from Mulmur / • Road condition issue for farm truck traffic 80 10 Clearview Townline to 6 / 7 88 / 83 80 • Some rural residential
Sideroad • ATV prohibited • Recommend increased maintenance • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 1029 vpd ADT • Cycling route; ATV prohibited Fairgrounds Road S from • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 11 County Road 9 to 15 / 16 75 / 75 80 80 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements Sideroad • Recommend to review signage at horizontal curves • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained Fairgrounds Road S from • 1378 vpd ADT 12 15 / 16 Sideroad to County 96 / 89 80 80 • Cycling route; ATV prohibited Road 91 DRAFT• Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 41 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 1108 vpd ADT • Cycling route Fairgrounds Road N from • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 13 County Road 91 to 30 / 31 102 / 99 80 80 • >20 km/h over posted Sideroad • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 1077 vpd ADT • Cycling route Fairgrounds Road N from • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 14 30 / 31 Sideroad to 33 / 34 103 / 93 80 80 • >20 km/h over posted Sideroad • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 666 vpd ADT Concession 3 South – 6 / 7 • Collector road 15 Sideroad from County Road 42 76 / 73 80 80 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements to George Street • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 689 vpd ADT • Arterial road to the north of Webster Road Centreline Road from Mulmur / • Narrow bridge 16 Clearview Townline to 95 / 85 80 80 • Gravel pit traffic Concession 2 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 1425 vpd ADT • Arterial road • Gravel pit traffic Centreline Road from • Recommend to review shoulder requirements 17 Concession 2 to County Road 96 / 98 80 80 • Recommend clearing of vegetation within ROW 9 • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Overall corridor has significant number of collisions DRAFT• Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 42 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) • 2261 vpd ADT • Arterial road Centreline Road from County • Overall corridor has significant number of collisions 18 85 / 99 80 80 Road 9 to Concession 7 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 2599 vpd ADT • Arterial road Centreline Road from • Overall corridor has significant number of collisions 19 Concession 7 to Warrington 106 / 99 80 80 • >20 km/h over posted Road • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 2064 vpd ADT • Arterial road Centreline Road from • Overall corridor has significant number of collisions 20 Warrington Road to Highway 95 / 96 80 80 • Recommend vegetation removal within ROW 26 • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 1967 vpd ADT Klondike Park Road from • Overall corridor has significant number of collisions 21 Highway 26 to Wasaga Beach 89 / 102 80 80 • >20 km/h over posted Town Limits • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 701 vpd ADT 3 / 4 Sideroad Sunnidale from 22 84 / 89 80 80 • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions Highway 26 to Concession 9 • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 843 vpd ADT 3 / 4 Sideroad Sunnidale from • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 23 Concession 9 to County Road 104 / 105 80 80 • >20 km/h over posted 9 • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 589 vpd ADT 3 / 4 Sideroad Sunnidale from • >20 km/h over posted 24 County Road 9 to Concession 92 / 105 80 80 • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered 2 DRAFT• Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 43 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) • 243 vpd ADT • ATV trail along road • Some rural residential • Significant collision rate • >20 km/h over posted Hogback Road from Webster • TAC recommendation 70 km/h 25 103 / 96 80 80 Road to Concession 2 • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend removing vegetation in ROW • Recommend improving alignment at intersection • Recommended that existing posted speed be maintained to minimize speed differential issues • 499 vpd ADT • Collector road • ATV trail along road • Some rural residential • Significant collision rate Hogback Road from • >20 km/h over posted 26 Concession 2 to County Road 102 / 95 80 80 • TAC recommendation 70 km/h 9 • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend to remove vegetation in ROW • Recommend to improve alignment at intersection • Recommended that existing posted speed be maintained to minimize speed differential issues • 2234 vpd ADT • ATV trail along road Sunnidale / Tosorontio • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered 27 Townline from 6 / 7 Sideroad to 99 / 97 80 80 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements County Road 10 • Recommend to remove vegetation in ROW • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 516 vpd ADT • Collector road, some semi-urban residential Switzer Street from County • >20 km over posted 28 76 / 79 50 50 Road 9 to Creemore Avenue • Recommend to review shoulder requirements DRAFT• Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speeds be maintained
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 44 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) • 71 vpd ADT • Gravel road Creemore Ave from County • Some semi-urban residential development 29 65 / 65 80 80 Road 9 to Switzer Street • > 8 km/h below posted, but potential for differential speed issue is low due to low traffic volumes • Recommend that existing posted speeds be maintained • 97 vpd ADT • Gravel road Creemore Ave from Switzer 30 85 / 84 80 80 • TAC recommendation 70 km/h Street to Concession 7 • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained, considering low traffic volumes • 3051 vpd ADT • ATV trail along road Concession 12 from Klondike • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 31 95 / 96 80 80 Park Road to County Road 10 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 3315 vpd ADT • ATV trail along road • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions Concession 12 from County 32 94 / 101 80 80 • >20 km/h over posted Road 10 to County Road 7 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 951 vpd ADT • >20 km/h over posted Concession 9 from Count Road 33 108 / 95 80 80 • Recommend to review shoulder requirements 10 to Centreline Road • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 279 vpd ADT • ATV trail along road Concession 7 from County • >20 km/h over posted 34 109 / 94 80 80 Road 10 to Centreline Road • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measurers be considered DRAFT• Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 45 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) • 127 vpd ADT • Gravel road 27 / 28 Sideroad from Highway • >8 km/h below posted but potential for differential speed issues is low due 35 65 / 63 80 80 26 to Fairgrounds Road N to low traffic volumes • Significant collision rate • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 150 vpd ADT • Gravel road 27 / 28 Sideroad from • >8 km/h below posted but potential for differential speed issues is low due 36 Fairgrounds Road N to 62 / 52 80 80 to low traffic volumes Concession 6 • Significant collision rate • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 562 vpd ADT • Semi-urban residential development along corridor • Cycling route 36 / 37 Sideroad from County 80 west 70 west • >20 km/h over east posted 37 80 / 80 Road 124 to Concession 10 50 east 50 east • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered • Recommend a posted speed reduction for the west segment based on risk analysis and land use considerations • 467 vpd ADT • Semi-urban residential development along corridor • Cycling route 36 / 37 Sideroad from County • >8 km/h below posted 38 73 / 71 80 70 Road 124 to Concession 6 • TAC recommendation 70 km/h • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend a posted speed reduction based on risk analysis and land use considerations • 554 vpd ADT Batteaux Road from County • Collector road, semi-urban residential development along corridor 39 64 / 64 50 50 Road 124 to Concession 6 • Cycling route • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 517 vpd ADT 3 / 4 Sideroad Nottawasaga • Recommend to review shoulder requirements 40 from County Road 42 to 96 / 95 80 80 • Recommend that traffic calming measures be considered Centreline Road DRAFT• Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 46 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
Operating Current Posted Point ID (Map Recommended Posted Speed Road Speed Per Direction Speed Comments / Recommendations C1) (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) Centre Street from County • 288 vpd ADT (one direction) 41 Road 42 to Side Street (one 48 50 50 • Semi-Urban direction) • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 414 vpd ADT (one direction) • Cycling route, ATV prohibited Concession 6 from County • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 42 Road 91 to 27 / 28 Sideroad 87 80 80 • TAC recommendation 70 km/h (one direction) • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained • 363 vpd ADT (one direction) • Gravel road; traffic volume is high for a gravel surface • Cycling route Concession 10 from 30 / 31 • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 43 Sideroad to 33 / 34 Sideroad 84 80 80 • Recommend clearing of vegetation within ROW (one direction) • Recommend upgrade to hardtop surface • TAC recommendation 70 km/h • Recommend that posted speed be maintained if surface upgraded to hardtop Creemore Ave from Switzer • 296 vpd ADT (one direction) 44 Street to 350 m east (one 60 50 50 • Semi-urban direction) • Recommended that posted speed be maintained Devil's Glen Entrance from • 269 vpd ADT (one direction) 45 County Road 124 to South 37 30 30 • Gravel road Road (one direction) • Recommend that posted speed be maintained • 379 vpd ADT (one direction) Fairground Road S. from • Cycling route; ATV prohibited 46 Sideroad 12/13 to Sideroad 88 80 80 • Overall corridor has a significant number of collisions 15/16 (one direction) • Recommend to review shoulder requirements • Recommend that existing posted speed be maintained Milltown Road from County • 125 vpd ADT (one direction) 47 Road 124 to 730 m east (one 45 50 50 • Semi-Urban direction) • Recommended that existing posted speed be maintained • 407 vpd ADT (one direction) William Street from Pine Street • Urban 48 36 50 50 to Oak Street (one direction) • >8 km/h below posted DRAFT• Recommended that existing posted speed be maintained
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 47 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
6.0 Traffic Management Strategy
6.1 Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic calming is defined as measures which are intended to slow traffic on local and collector roads, reallocate inappropriate traffic away from local streets, and reduce speeds on arterial roads. These measures are typically a combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. A literature review has been conducted to identify available traffic calming measures and to compare the pros and cons of these measures, as summarized in Appendix E. The objective is to implement traffic calming measures that result in a net improvement (both real and perceived) in the quality of life and community safety at a reasonable cost. Potential traffic calming measures should be reviewed to avoid adversely affecting operational costs and emergency services.
To successfully achieve traffic calming in urban areas, the primary measures include the following: • Installation of visual treatments that may include entrance or gateway features, roadside trees, and/or ground cover. • Changes to the roadways texture and/or colour. • Changes to the vertical and/or horizontal alignment of the roadway. • Changes to the travelled portion of the roadway through pavement and/or lane narrowing, such as vertical centre line treatment. • Increased enforcement and education.
Many of the traffic calming measures recommended for urban areas cannot be applied in rural areas, may be ineffective or result in adversely impacting safety in those areas. Therefore, implementation of traffic calming must recognize the rural vs urban context in identifying mitigation measures.
There are areas where traffic calming measures may not be the best strategy to address speeding issues, such as under the following existing conditions: • Where the location presents a sequence of small-radius curves. • Where the location presents visibility and movements restrictions. • Where theDRAFT surface type is not conducive to traffic calming (e.g., gravel). • Where roadway network improvements could reduce cut-through traffic and volumes, potentially solving the concern that originated the request for traffic calming. • Where engineering judgement indicates that traffic calming may be incompatible with the conditions.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 48 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
• Where the speeding issue indicates an inconsistency between the existing speed limit and the design and/or function of the road, requiring a detailed engineering study to be recommended.
6.2 Review of Traffic Calming Policy
A jurisdictional scan was completed of traffic calming policies and regulations for several municipalities in Ontario as a comparator to the current CTCP. The common elements of traffic calming policies are reviewed as follows: • Pre-screening Thresholds – Threshold values are typically established to assess whether a request for traffic calming should be refused or move forward to more detailed review, with the more common identified elements including: − Grade − Traffic volumes − Block length − Speed − Collision data − Presence of other roadway users (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists) • Scoring and Ranking System – A scoring / ranking system is used to prioritize sites with higher degrees of concerns as well as to efficiently allocate resources. Elements considered as part of the scoring and ranking process typically include: − School zones, parks, or designated pedestrian crossings − Road classification − Intensity of speeding − Traffic volumes − Number of collisions − Percentage of cut-through traffic • Public Input – the extent of public input varies between municipalities, ranging from minimal engagement to extensive participation during the entire evaluation and implementation process. • Description of Traffic Calming Measures – Typically details of the available traffic calming measures are provided, including cost estimates, with their applicability based on the type or road. • Standardized Traffic Calming Warrant Process – A warrant process is typically set out to determine if a traffic calming request is warranted, including the following typical elements:DRAFT − Petition of residents or identification of issue location based on internal process. − Confirm that the location is suitable for traffic calming. − Complete a traffic operations review. − Ensure that technical and safety warrants are met. − Identify the most suitable type of traffic calming measure. • Complete the ranking process.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 49 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
• Approval. • Implementation and evaluation of measures.
The CTCP generally meets the typical policy requirements, however the following enhancements are recommended for consideration in any future updates to this policy: • Increased differentiation between the applicability of traffic calming options between urban environments and rural environments. • Establish the time period for completion of the traffic calming process. • Establish the time period for implementation of the traffic calming measures (e.g., immediate to address safety issue, at the time of road rehabilitation, at the time of road reconstruction). • Confirm any cost-sharing for traffic calming measures (e.g., municipal costs to maintain safety, local improvement costs, development charges, user groups). • Provide additional context-sensitive guidance for the types of traffic calming measures that may be options to address the identified issues. • Set traffic volume parameters as one of the measures to establish the types of traffic calming needs, in addition to speeds. • Consider road engineering (e.g., widths, geometrics, surface condition) and road network requirements (e.g., traffic diversion) within the context of addressing speed-related issues. • Review of the speed threshold value (i.e., 85th percentile speed of greater than 10 km/h over the posted speed) vs establishing target speeds for various road types. • Consider detailed review of collision data as one of the factors in the identification of the magnitude of the speeding issue.
6.3 Speed Management
6.3.1 Speed Signage
For speeds to be enforceable, the Highway Traffic Act requires posted speed signs to be installed in all locations where the speeds differ from the statutory speeds set by the legislation (i.e., 80 km/h in rural areas and 50 km/h in urban areas). It is recommended the Township review the signage in these areas to ensure that the motorist is adequately informed of the speed requirements in these areas. Similarly, it is recommended the speed signs be reviewed for those areas where the statutory speed applies, but where operating speeds are over 10 km/h above this speed. Increasing the number of speed signs will provideDRAFT a reinforcement of the target speeds to the motorist and allow for enforcement in those areas.
It is also recommended that the signage be reviewed for all areas of increased conflict potential. Signage should meet the requirements set out in the OTM as well as the guidelines set out in various TAC publications. Warning signs should be placed at all horizontal curves to denote the appropriate speed through the curve. An adequate
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 50 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
number of chevron signs should be placed to delineate the curve. At vertical curves signs should identify any sight line constraints that may exist (e.g., hidden entrance).
6.3.2 Radar Speed Signs
The Township has been utilizing radar speed display signs that alert drivers to their operating speeds relative to target speeds. The radar speed detectors in these signs also allow the Township to gather and report speed data over prolonged periods, allowing for ongoing monitoring of speeding issues and to gauge the effectiveness of traffic management measures, if implemented. The signs can be placed on a temporary basis for monitoring and education or can be permanent installations in areas with higher sensitivity to speeding issues. These signs are less expensive than police enforcement and can be deployed quickly if portable signs are utilized. These signs have been found to be effective in reducing operating speeds by 3 to 14 km/h. However, excessive use of radar speed signs may lead motorists to disregard or ignore the signs over the long term, particularly if placed in suboptimal locations or if there is no perception of enforcement. These signs have been found to be most effective in moderating speeds on roads that have relatively low volumes (i.e., average daily traffic below 500 vpd).
A review of the speed sign data provided for this study (i.e., 8 locations) generally confirms the general comments noted above relative to the effectiveness of these signs as a traffic calming measure.
6.3.3 Community Safety Zones
This TAC has also considered the general requirements associated with Community Safety Zones. Community Safety Zones (CSZ) were introduced in Ontario in 1998 and are sections of roadway where public safety is of special concern. CSZ may include roadways near schools, daycare centres, playgrounds, parks, hospitals and senior citizen residences and may also apply to collision-prone areas within a community. These zones let motorists know (through signage) that they are within a zone where fines have been increased, through a special designation under the Highway Traffic Act. The signage for CSZ should be in accordance with the OTM (Book 5, Regulatory Signs). The knowledge and expertise of local decision-making bodies, such as municipal council, municipal engineering staff, police services board as well as input from local ratepayers’ associations or community policing committees can be employed in the identification of CSZ. Ideally, there should be documented evidence that public safety is of special concernDRAFT in the area being considered for a CSZ. CSZ are intended to be a tool to improving public safety and should be a consideration as a potential mitigation measure, as part of any future study work for those roads that are recommended for ongoing monitoring of speed and collision data. However, it should be noted that studies in some other municipalities (e.g., Toronto, Milton) have shown that CSZ have not been that effective in encouraging compliance with posted speed
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 51 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
limits, particularly if not enforced. York Region reviews also concluded that exhaustive use of CSZ is not a practical method of solving unwanted driver behavior, as drivers may become unreceptive and non-compliant without strict and frequent enforcement. CSZ must be recognizable to the driver as a special situation that warrants an increased awareness of community activity to the road right-of-way; thus, the need for an increased awareness for traffic safety. Otherwise, motorists are continuing to travel at speeds, which they deem comfortable based on prevailing roadway conditions and roadside environment, regardless of posted speed limits and / or CSZ designations.
Consistent with the above observations, the City of Vaughan has recommended the following guidelines for establishing a CSZ: • CSZ should only be implemented for community-based facilities such as schools, community centres, parks, retirement areas, or roadway sections with continual high collision rates. • Each by-law establishing a Community Safety Zone must indicate that the designation is in effect for 24 hours a day to assist the Police with enforcement. • Community Safety Zones must always be used in conjunction with other traffic safety and police enforcement measures.
As noted previously the implementation of lower posted speeds and/or CSZ designations may not have significant impacts on reducing speeds, particularly if these are not accompanied by increased enforcement. Therefore, the implementation of CSZ designations would not typically apply to rural roads, since the primary objective of raising the awareness of motorists to an area of increased safety concerns / conflict is not achieved, nor necessarily discernable to the travelling public. In urban and semi-urban areas the consideration of CSZ designations should be based on a review of the potential safety issues on a case-by-case basis.
It should also be noted that Bill 65 was enacted in 2017 to allow municipalities to implement automated speed enforcement (photo radar) in designated CSZs. This may be a future consideration in areas where speed enforcement is determined to be the only means of effectively addressing speeding issues in these speed-sensitive areas.
6.3.4 Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE)
The Province of Ontario has passed legislation (i.e., Bill 65, Safer School Zone Act) in 2017 that permits municipalities to use Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE), commonly referredDRAFT to as “photo radar”, to address traffic issues at designated school zones and community safety zones, where designated by by-law. ASE has effectively been deployed in larger municipalities in the Province since the implementation of this legislation. Discussions are ongoing between the Ontario Traffic Council and a number of smaller municipalities to develop an administrative framework to effectively process speeding tickets that would result from implementing ASE. It is suggested that speeding
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 52 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
tickets issued for ASE offences could utilize an administrative monetary penalty system (AMPS) process rather than be handles through the provincial court system, under the Provincial Offences Act. Once these issues have been addressed it is expected that ASE will be an effective mechanism to address speeding issues in these areas of higher speed sensitivity.
6.3.5 All-Way Stop Control
Despite published guidelines, there is often pressure from adjacent residents to have all-way stop control (AWSC) implemented as a measure to address operating speeds or to deter infiltration traffic through their neighbourhoods. AWSC are not effective in addressing these issues and may be counter-productive due to their aggravation of other traffic operation factors. The use of AWSC may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior (e.g., deliberate ignoring of the stop control or increasing of speeds between controls). In addition, AWSC increases the emissions of hydrocarbons, increases average delay, may discourage bicycling and presents increased risk if the intersection reverts back to two-way control in the future (i.e., due to the habitual expectation of drivers).
The OTM (Book 5, Regulatory Signs), provides guidelines for the use of stop sign controls, including the following: • Stop signs are not intended to be used as speed control devices or as a means of deterring the movement of through traffic. Their usage should be limited to the control of ROW conflicts. • In general, stop signs should only be used where traffic engineering studies have been completed to indicate that the use of stop signs is warranted, considering such factors as traffic speeds, traffic volumes, restricted sight lines and collision experience. • AWSCs should only be considered at the intersection of two relatively equal roadways, having similar traffic volume demand and operating characteristics.
It is recommended that the decision to install a multi-way stop control should be based on a complete engineering study of the intersection, taking into consideration the OTM Book 5 guidelines / warrants, as well as other factors that may directly affect the safety of the right-of-way conflicts within the intersection, including: • Vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches. • Number andDRAFT angle of approaches. • Approach speeds. • Sight distance available on each approach. • Reported collision experience. • Need to provide a low-speed area for pedestrians to cross. • Where a cross street experiences considerable difficulty finding safe gaps due to heavy traffic volumes.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 53 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
• Where traffic is frequently delayed by turning conflicts. • Where it can be shown that traffic flow would be improved by installing the all-way stop control. • Consideration of other alternate traffic controls (e.g., roundabout, mini-roundabout, or traffic circle).
In many cases the results of such studies indicate that AWSC is not recommended.
Considering the above criteria, it is recommended that AWSC not be implemented to specifically address speeding or traffic infiltration issues, but that such issues be addressed through traffic calming, traffic management and speed enforcement measures.
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study Township of Clearview 54 Traffic Assessment Study June 2021
7.0 Closing Comments
The traffic analysis outlined in this study has considered traffic volumes and operating speeds, in addition to other factors, to review the traffic operations on forty-eight (48) roads within the Township. Based on this review we have provided an assessment of the existing posted speeds on these roads, as well as needs for increased speed management and future monitoring of traffic data (speeds, speed variations, collision data and traffic infiltration). In addition, this report has general recommendations pertaining to the application of CSZs and to the use of AWSC on the Township’s roads. This report has also provided a summary of available traffic calming measures and their pros and cons, for consideration in future studies to identify mitigation measures to address speeding concerns on a case-by-case basis.
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300051895.0000 51895_Traffic Assessment Study
Appendix A
Appendix A
Road Inventory Map and Data
DRAFT
fi BURNSIDE
Stn. ID Name From To Lavender Hill Road County Road 9 Mulmur/Clearview Townline Concession 11 15/16 Sideroad Ewing Road Collingwood Concession 10 County Road 124 County Road 91 Concession 10 County Road 91 33/34 Sideroad Concession 10 33/34 Sideroad Poplar Sideroad Concession 6 Poplar Sideroad 33/34 Sideroad Concession 6 33/34 Sideroad County Road 91 Concession 6 County Road 91 15/16 Sideroad Riverside Drive 15/16 Sideroad County Road 9 10 Concession 5 Mulmur/Clearview Townline 6/7 Sideroad 11 Fairgrounds Road S. County Road 9 15/16 Sideroad 12 Fairgrounds Road S 15/16 Sideroad County Road 91 13 Fairgrounds Road N. County Road 91 30/31 Sideroad 14 Fairgrounds Road N. 30/31 Sideroad 33/34 Sideroad 15 Concession 3 South - 6/7 Sideroad County Road 42 George Street 16 Centreline Road Mulmur/Clearview Townline Concession 2 17 Centreline Road Concession 2 County Road 9 18 Centreline Road County Road 9 Concession 7 19 Centreline Road Concession 7 Warrignton Road 1it:Jii 20 Centreline Road Warrington Road Highway 26 21 Klondike Park Road Highway 26 Wasaga Beach Town Limits 22 3/4 Sideroad Sunnidale Highway 26 Concession 9 23 3/4 Sideroad Sunnidale Concession 9 County Road 9 24 3/4 Sideroad Sunnidale County Road 9 Concession 2 25 Hogback Road Webster Road Concession 2 26 Hogback Road Concession 2 County Road 9 I New towell 27 Sunnidale/Tosorontio Townline 6/7 Sideroad County Road 10 28 Switzer Street County Road 9 Creemore Ave. ® 29 Creemore Ave County Road 9 Switzer Street 30 Creemore Ave Switzer Street Concession 7 31 Concession 12 Klondike Park Road County Road 10 32 Concession 12 County Road 10 County Road 7 33 Concession 9 County Road 10 Centreline Road Singhampton �\r 1:1 � 34 Concession 7 County Road 10 Centreline Road D 35 27/28 Sideroad Highway 26 Fairgrounds Road N. 36 27/28 Sideroad Fairgrounds Road N. Concession 6 37 36/37 Sideroad County Road 124 Concession 10 � 38 36/37 Sideroad County Road 124 Concession 6 39 Batteaux Road County Road 124 Concession 6 C.F.B. Borden 40 3/4 Sideroad Nottawasaga County Road 42 Centreline Road Avening 41 Center Street (Eastbound) County Road 42 Side Street Glencairn I 42 Concession 6 (Southbound) County Road 91 27/28 Sideroad BmJ Traffic Count Station (Clearview) � • 43 Concession 10 (Northbound) 30/31 Sideroad 33/34 Sideroad @ • Traffic Count Station (Ontario Traffic Inc.) 44 Creemore Ave (Westbound) Switzer Street 730m E. of Intersection 45 Devil's Glen Entrance (Southbound) County Road 124 South Road Traffic Study Segments 46 Fairground Road S. (Northbound) Sideroad 12/13 Sideroad 15/16 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Proportional Symbol 47 Milltown Road County Road 124 730m E. of Intersection Represents an AADT of 1,000 Vehicles 48 William Street Pine Street Oak Street
Traffic Count Station/Road Section Data Symbols and Values 0 Traffic Count Station ID DRAFTPosted Speed Limit Recommended Speed Limit
1:130,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic Count (AADT) l Figure A 1 Speed and Traffic Data File Path: C:\Userslpstubbert\RJB\300051895 Clearview Traffic Study - 06_GIS\0518951051895.aprx Print Date: 2021/06/08 Time: 09:37 AM
Appendix B Appendix
Clearview’s Current Traffic Calming Policy B (Excerpts) – Process and Needs Score
DRAFT
Appendix A
Clearview Traffic Calming Policy (Excerpt)
Approved August 2019
Traffic Calming Measures Guidelines
4.1 Consideration for Traffic Calming
Traffic calming measures will:
• Be considered when there is a demonstrated safety, speed or short-cutting traffic concern and acceptable alternative measures have been exhausted.
• Be considered after focus is placed first on improvements to the arterial road network, such as signal timing optimization.
• Include consideration as to whether an area-wide plan versus a street-specific plan is more suitable: an area wide plan should be considered if a street-specific plan would likely result in displacement of traffic onto adjacent streets.
• Be predominantly restricted to two lane roads (one lane of through traffic in each direction.
• Not impede non-motorized, alternative modes of transportation and be designed to ensure pedestrian and cycling traffic is unaffected.
• Not impede Emergency and Transit services access unless alternate measures are agreed upon with the affected Departments.
• Maintain reasonable automobile access to Township roads.
• Consider parking removal on a project-by-project basis. Parking needs of residents should be balanced with the equally important functions of traffic, emergency vehicle access, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement.
• Only be installed after staff has investigated existing traffic conditions and the necessary approvals haveDRAFT been received. • Be monitored; follow-up assessment and report will be completed to confirm effectiveness and the results will be communicated to area residents and Council. 1. Community Involvement
Restoring neighbourhood streets to their intended function and improving overall livability are primary objectives of traffic calming. In order to achieve this goal, community involvement and support is paramount. Throughout the process, residents are encouraged to participate in the development of a traffic calming plan suitable to the neighbourhood and the concerns within it.
Communication with residents is made at various stages throughout the process as the traffic calming plan is developed and implemented. Traffic calming plans should be developed with an understanding of current and historical traffic patterns within the area under investigation. For a traffic calming program to be successful, the neighbourhood must support and be committed to the solution. The only means of gaining this commitment is to involve the residents by informing them of the study location being considered for traffic calming measures and the proposed solution.
The benefit of neighbourhood involvement is that it generates support for a traffic calming program and assists in the implementation of a plan without significant opposition upon completion. Neighbourhood involvement also enhances the credibility of the traffic calming program, particularly when it is eventually presented to Committee or Council for approval. In order to obtain a working partnership with the committee or residents, a description of the study will be issued in a notice along with a survey delivered to residents affected by the implementation of the proposed traffic calming measures.
These forms of contact will provide the affected residents with opportunities to offer input into the development of the plan, as well as publicize and increase the awareness of the study.
The review and implementation of traffic calming measures is a time consuming and expensive process requiring many resources. Without public support, the traffic calming measures intended to alleviate traffic concerns could be met with negative public opinion as a result, jeopardizing the outcome and potential positive impacts to affected neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhood support, enforcement, education of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, appropriate engineering applications and economics typically determine the success of any traffic calming endeavor. A cooperative partnership between the affected residents and the Township is essential to the success of the project.
In some cases, it may be found that traffic calming measures are warranted and a majority of affected residents would prefer some form of mitigation, but there is a wide range of conflicting opinions regarding the type of mitigation etc. Pending comments received from the residents regarding the notificationDRAFT and survey, the Township may offer to host a Public Open House to discuss potential options for traffic calming measures.
1.1 Class Environmental Assessment Process
Traffic calming is exempt from the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and is not an undertaking subject to the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended). Where appropriate, public consultation elements of the Municipal Class EA for a Schedule B project (including the potential public meeting when warranted as noted above) have been incorporated in this policy as a best practice.
It should be noted that the retirement of existing laneways, roads and road related facilities is classified as a Schedule A+ project under the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended). Schedule A+ projects are pre- approved, provided that the public is advised prior to implementation. The manner in which the public is informed throughout this policy will serve as the preferred method of public notification for any traffic calming measures that involve the retirement of existing road facilities.
2 Traffic Calming Staff Review Considerations
The following process will be used when proceeding with a request for traffic calming measures within the Township of Clearview. An established and formal process for investigating roads provides consistency and equality in the determination of need and suitability of traffic calming measures.
2.1 Step 1: Initiate Traffic Calming Request
Resident Concern
Residents with traffic related concerns are instructed to complete the form in Appendix A of this Policy and submit their written request to investigate traffic calming on their road or within their neighborhood to the Township of Clearview Public Works Department. Staff will then conduct a brief preliminary assessment to determine if the requested road meets the initial screening criteria.
Initial Screening by Township Staff
Initial screening criteria to determine eligibility for consideration for traffic calming measures have been established.
With respect to the road or road section in question, it must:
• Be a local or collector road assumed and maintained by the Township of Clearview.
• Have a minimum length of 150m. In addition, the followingDRAFT must also be satisfied: • All reasonable efforts have been made to address the concerns utilizing other means including engineering, education and enforcement tools; and
• Zoning should be primarily residential in nature. For roads or road sections with restricted horizontal and/or vertical alignment, and hence restricted sight lines, traffic calming measures could be considered in conjunction with reduced speed limits and adequate warning signs.
Response to Residents
Following the initial review, Township staff will inform residents as to whether or not their location meets the initial screening criteria. Residents with requests that meet the above noted initial screening criteria will receive information about the traffic calming process. Roads that do not meet the above-noted criteria may still be eligible for other mitigating measures and/or police enforcement initiatives.
For locations not meeting the above-noted initial screening criteria, staff will consider front-line mitigating measures to address the neighbourhood traffic concerns. These methods could include tools such as the use of targeted police enforcement, sign installation, and pavement marking modifications.
2.2 Step 2: Data Collection
If the requested location meets the initial screening criteria, data collection and analysis will commence. The collection of traffic data, as deemed necessary by Township staff, will serve to provide a better understanding of the current traffic conditions and to prioritize locations for the investigation of traffic calming.
Staff will conduct the necessary traffic studies (or outsource such studies) to quantify and qualify the submitted traffic concerns. The data collected may include traffic volumes and composition (cars and trucks), vehicle speeds, collisions, sight lines related to deficient horizontal and/or vertical alignment and stopping distance, pedestrian activity, an origin/destination study (third party study), if the request relates to shortcutting traffic, and historical site-specific information.
For vehicle speeds, it is not prudent to consider the highest speed at which motorists travel. Rather, the 85th percentile speed will be considered, which is the speed at which 85% of the total traffic volume on a road is travelling at or below. In considering the need for traffic calming, the 85th percentile speed must exceed the posted speed limit by a minimum of 10 km/h as per the values provided in Table 1.
Table 1: 85th Percentile Speed Considerations Posted Speed Limit 85th Percentile Speed 40 km/h 50 km/h 50DRAFT km/h 60 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h
With respect to sight distances and the need for traffic calming to reduce travel speeds upon approach to intersections, the existing sight distances at intersections must be less than the distances outlined in Table 2 for traffic calming to be warranted. For lower speed roads (e.g. posted speed of 50 km/h or less), the design speed is typically taken as 10 km/h over the posted speed, whereas for higher speed roads (e.g. posted speed of 60 km/h or more), design speed is typically 20 km/h greater than posted speed.
Table 2: Stopping Sight Distance Considerations
Design Speed Minimum Stopping Sight Distance
40 km/h 45 m
50 km/h 65 m 60 km/h 85 m
70 km/h 110 m
The above distances in metres (m) at each design speed are the “minimum stopping sight distances on wet pavement” as outlined in the MTO Geometric Design Standards.
Once collected and summarized, the data will be utilized in the overall assessment to determine the need for traffic calming and assist in setting priority for locations of consideration.
2.3 Step 3: Data Assessment
Basis for Assessment
The data assessment is a screening process focused on the various attributes of a road in order to quantify its potential need for traffic calming. By means of assigning weighted points based on the severity of certain road attributes (e.g. 85th percentile speed), this process will bring to the forefront roads requiring consideration while quantifying the current conditions. A basis for assessment has been prepared in consideration of comparable traffic calming policies in effect throughout the area (refer to Appendix B for the assessment worksheet). Only road sections that achieve the minimum required points as specified in Appendix B will be reviewed further in the next steps of the process.
Should the minimum required points be met for a request, depending on funding availability, locations for implementation will be selected based on the point system, with those locations with the highest points implemented first. If funding does not permit all locations to be implemented in one year, roads will be carried forward to the next year when they will then be re-prioritized to include any new locations. Assessment ThresholdsDRAFT The minimum number of points required to proceed with the investigation of traffic calming measures differs based on the classification of road. In keeping with the objective of restoring roads to their intended function, local and collector roads are designed and expected to convey varying levels of traffic volume. This, in turn, has a bearing on the minimum point value required to proceed, as traffic volume is a major consideration. Based on this, the following are minimum point values for each road type, as can be seen in Appendix B:
• Local road minimum 35 points
• Collector road minimum 52 points
Response to Residents
Based on the points received for a request location and the existing conditions / parameters of the area, an appropriate type of traffic calming measure will be selected by staff and communicated to the affected residents by way of a written notice and request for proponents to complete a survey / petition.
Should a location fail to meet the requirements, the resident(s) will be notified in writing and the investigation for traffic calming measures will discontinue. However, staff may (depending on the circumstances of the data assessment, such as excessive speeds being noted) continue to address the concerns of the residents by means of the front-line mitigating measures including:
• Request of targeted police enforcement.
• Community entrance signs such as “Drive slowly…think of us”.
• Installation of temporary radar speed display signs.
The signs used as front-line mitigation measures are visual reminders to motorists that they are entering a residential area where the residents are concerned about safety. Targeted police enforcement will make drivers more aware of the speed limit and force them to temporarily reduce their speed and comply with speed limits.
Residents may wish to follow up with the Manager of Public Works who can, if in agreement with the residents’ request, propose a motion to Council requesting a report from staff to Council explaining the denial. Through this motion Council may overrule the decision and support a traffic calming measure.
2.4 Step 4: Neighbourhood Petition / Survey
Should it be determined that the road / study area meets the minimum points criteria, staff will advise residents in the neighbourhood that would be affected by the new traffic calming measure advising of the potential new roadway works. Subsequent to a review with the neighbourhood by way of notification or Public Open House, the neighbourhood proponents will be requested to submit a written confirmationDRAFT of their opinion by way of completing a survey / petition that Township staff will provide to each proponent along with the notice. The focus of the petition will center on whether or not there is sufficient neighbourhood / local support for the Township to implement the proposed / selected traffic calming measure on the requested road. This is to ensure that the majority of residents in the area would actually prefer to have the traffic calming in place, rather than creating more of a neighbourhood nuisance than an effective mitigation measure.
The petition would have to contain an indication of support from at least 51% of the households with direct frontage or flankage onto the section of road that has been identified as the location for the potential implementation of traffic calming measures, as defined by Township staff. Each household is represented by one signature, regardless of the number of people in the household. Failure to meet the 51% support level will result in termination of the investigation; meeting the required 51%, support level will confirm that the proposed traffic calming measure is to proceed. This step in the process is crucial in confirming the level of concern from the residents and will prevent implementation of measures that are not supported by the remainder of the neighbourhood.
Neighbourhood Support Survey
The objective of the neighbourhood support survey is to determine the level of support for the traffic calming design and to provide an opportunity for the most directly affected residents to oppose any modifications to the road. It is also intended to measure the support of the preferred design proposed to the residents. Surveys will be delivered by mail and at a minimum, will contain:
• A brief description of traffic calming, including its advantages and disadvantages.
• The results of the traffic studies undertaken by staff.
• A survey question asking if residents are in favour, opposed or neutral to the implementation of traffic calming measures in the identified location(s).
• The preferred traffic calming design.
• A request for comments and feedback.
• An indication that this is the final opportunity to modify and improve the preferred design to address any outstanding concerns and to incorporate resident input.
In order for the process to continue, a minimum of 25% of total surveys delivered must be returned to the Township. Of this 25%, 60% acceptance for the implementation of traffic calming is required. This reinforces that community support is vital for the ultimate success of traffic calming. For example, if 100 surveys are delivered, a minimum of 25 surveys is required to be returned and of those, 15 mustDRAFT indicate acceptance of the recommended traffic calming measure. If this support rate is not met, the process will cease and a notification of failure to meet the neighbourhood support levels will be sent to the residents on the mailing list.
Should the support rate be met but there is a wide range of comments / opinions regarding the type of traffic calming measures being proposed, Township staff may coordinate a public meeting to further engage the affected residents, educate on traffic calming in general and take any final comments into consideration.
2.5 Step 5: Design Consideration & Community Feedback
Selection of Traffic Calming Measure
The data collected combined with site visits, historical information, future maintenance and construction plans, as well as resident feedback will be taken into consideration to determine potential traffic calming measures. Appropriate traffic calming measures will be determined based on the list of traffic calming measures outlined in Section 3 of this policy. The traffic calming design could include one or more different types of traffic calming techniques. The proposed traffic calming measures will be in accordance with the design guidelines outlined in the Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming and the judgment and experience of Township staff and the selected measure will be explained to the affected residents in the notice / request to complete the survey / petition.
Agency Consultation
Staff will provide the preferred design to the relevant agencies (e.g. fire emergency services, transit services, etc.) prior to circulating the notice to the residents. Comments from the potentially affected services will be solicited and feedback with respect to possible impacts will be encouraged. As required, Township staff will work with agencies to modify the design, as necessary. While it is preferable to modify the traffic calming design, if modifications are not able to remedy agency concerns, the traffic calming process will be discontinued for the road under consideration and residents will be notified accordingly.
Neighbourhood Consultation
Using summarized comments from the submitted petition and information about the road and surrounding area, staff will define the area limits for neighbourhood consultation. As part of this process, surrounding roads may be identified as part of the investigation. As a minimum, households with direct frontage onto the road as well as each property whose side yard abuts the subject road section will be issued a notice of the impending traffic control measure. Households that do not directly front the subject road, but who have no other option but to use the section of road where traffic calming is being proposed will also receive a notice. 2.6 Step 6: FinalizeDRAFT & Implement the Traffic Calming Plan Finalize the Traffic Calming Plan
Using technical data, community feedback, and in keeping with the goals, objectives and principles set out in this Policy, staff will finalize the preferred traffic calming design to be put forward as the preferred Traffic Calming Measure. In finalizing the preferred Traffic Calming Measure, general consideration will be given to the various aspects of road design such as utility placement, landscaping, sign requirements and drainage.
Council Notification
A report recommending the implementation of the preferred traffic calming measure will be submitted to Council. The recommendation may be accompanied by an amending By-law for the inclusion of traffic calming measures, if applicable (e.g. defining a new Community Safety Zone as required under the Highway Traffic Act, etc.). The staff report will also outline estimated costs and anticipated timing for implementing the traffic control measure. The neighbourhood and affected parties will be made aware of when and where Committee and Council will be considering the staff report.
Implementation
Upon approval of Council, resident notification, and sufficient funding, traffic calming measures would be implemented. When immediate funding is not available, budget allocation will be considered during the following annual budget process and prioritized accordingly.
2.7 Step 7: Feedback Monitoring & Evaluation
Monitoring & Evaluation
Township staff will seek feedback and monitor the road to determine the effectiveness of the utilized measures and their impact on the surrounding road network. This may include subsequent traffic data collection including new traffic volume and speed no sooner than 3 months after the traffic control measure has been installed.
Removal of Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic calming devices may be removed, at the request of residents provided that more than the level of support exists to remove as was measured for installation (i.e. minimum 25% returned surveys, with over 60% of respondents agreeing to the removal). The survey will be delivered to the same residents as was initially done to gauge support for traffic calming. Traffic calming measures must be installed for at least a 3 month trial before consideration is given to remove them. If traffic calming devices are removed, the subject street must wait at least 2 years before requesting a new Traffic Calming Measure; at this point the approval process will start over.
If a request to remove a single traffic calming device, within an overall Traffic Calming Measure, is received, all trafficDRAFT calming devices will be considered for removal. Depending on circumstances, it could be possible to remove a single device constructed as part of an overall plan, however, in most cases all devices work together to be effective and to ensure that traffic is not diverted where it should not be.
The Township reserves the right to remove traffic calming measures if it determines that they are ineffective or unsafe, or if they have created a negative impact that cannot be corrected. The Township will mail out a notification and advertise in local newspapers informing of its decision to remove traffic calming measures.
Appendix B : Assessment of Traffic Calming Need
Road Prepared Section:______By:______Road Prepared Class:______On:______
Traffic Data Feature Range Criteria Score
5 points for every 2 km/h that the 85th
1. Speed 0 to 35 percentile speed is greater than 10 km/h
over the posted speed limit
2. Volume 0 to 20 Local Roadways: 5 points per 500 ADT
Collector Roads: 5 points per 1000 ADT
5 points if there is a presence of 25% or
3. Short-Cutting 0 to 15 more shortcutting traffic, additional 5
Traffic points for every 10% increment above 25%
4. Collisions 0 to 10 1 point for every collision/year over a
3-year period Road Characteristics Feature Range Criteria Score
1. Sidewalks 0 to 5 5 points for no sidewalks with evidence of
pedestrian activity
5 points for each nearby (must have direct
2. Pedestrian 0 to 15 connection to subject roadway) pedestrian
Generators generator such as school, playground,
community centre, libraries, retail, etc.
0 points for excellent sight lines, 5 points
3. Sight Lines 0 to 10 impaired sight lines, 10 points for very
poor sight lines
4. Road Allowance 0 to 5 5 points for limited paved surface and/or
Limitations boulevard width
Paved Width <6m OverallDRAFT Assessment
Does the location meet the minimum requirement: Total Score:
35 Points Local Road
52 points Collector Road
Appendix C
TAC Speed Limit Guidelines – Excel Analysis Form
Appendix C
DRAFT
Automated Speed Limit Guidelines Version: FORM A - Automated Speed Limit Guidelines Spreadsheet 10-Apr-09
Name of Corridor:
Segment Evaluated: to
Geographic Region:
Road Agency:
Road Classification: Length of Corridor: m
Design Speed: (Required for Freeway, Urban / Rural: km/h Expressway, Highway) Current Posted Speed: Divided / Undivided: km/h (For information only) Prevailing Speed: Major / Minor: km/h (85th Percentile - for information only) # Through Lanes Policy: Per Direction: (Maximum Posted Speed) RISK Score
A1 GEOMETRY (Horizontal)
A2 GEOMETRY (Vertical)
A3 AVERAGE LANE WIDTH Total Risk Score: B ROADSIDE HAZARDS
C1 PEDESTRIAN EXPOSURE
C2 CYCLIST EXPOSURE
Recommended Posted D PAVEMENT SURFACE Speed Limit (km/h): NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS Number of WITH PUBLIC ROADS Occurrences As determined by road characteristics STOP controlled intersection 0 Signalized intersection 0 E1 Roundabout or traffic circle 0 As determined by policy Crosswalk 0 Active, at-grade railroad crossing 0
Sidestreet STOP-controlled or lane 0 The recommended posted speed limit may be checked against the prevailing speeds of the NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS Number of roadway and the road's safety performance. WITH PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS Occurrences E2 Left turn movements permitted 0 Comments: Right-in / Right-out only 0
NUMBER OF INTERCHANGES Number of E3 Occurrences Number of interchanges along corridor 0 F ON-STREET PARKINGDRAFT
FORM A 1) Starting speed value:
Land Use Rural Urban Classification Undivided Divided Undivided Divided 1 lane per 2+ lanes per 1 lane per 2+ lanes per 1 lane per 2+ lanes per 1 lane per 2+ lanes per direction direction direction direction direction direction direction direction A divided freeway A divided freeway Freeways are typically Freeways are typically Freeways are typically Freeways are typically Freeway typically has 2+ lanes Design speed typically has 2+ lanes Design speed divided divided divided divided in each direction in each direction
Expressway Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed
Highway Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed Design speed
lane = through lane divided = a median that separates travel lanes of traffic in opposing directions, which may be flush with, raised above, or depressed below adjacent travel lanes (as per TAC GDGCR Section 2.2.5) The principle characteristics of "rural" and "urban" roads are described in TAC GDGRC Tables 1.3.4.1 and 1.3.4.2
Notes: Starting speed is an ideal desirable operating speed for the classification and land use combination.
Land Use Rural Urban Classification Undivided Divided Undivided Divided 1 lane per 2+ lanes per 1 lane per 2+ lanes per 1 lane per 2+ lanes per 1 lane per 2+ lanes per direction direction direction direction direction direction direction direction
Major 90 km/h 100 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h Arterial Minor 80 km/h 90 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h
Major 70 km/h 80 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h Collector Minor 60 km/h 70 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h
Local 60 km/h 50 km/h lane = through lane divided = a median that separates travel lanes of traffic in opposing directions, which may be flush with, raised above, or depressed below adjacent travel lanes (as per TAC GDGCR Section 2.2.5) The principle characteristics of "rural" and "urban" roads are described in TAC GDGRC Tables 1.3.4.1 and 1.3.4.2
Notes: Starting speed is an ideal desirable operating speed for the classification and land use combination. DRAFT 2a) FOR RURAL LAND USE: Identify the risk level for each evaluation criteria 2b) FOR URBAN LAND USE: Identify the risk level for each evaluation criteria
A1. Geometry (horizontal alignment) A1. Geometry (horizontal alignment)
Classification Rural Classification Urban
Higher risk 3 More than 6 curves per kilometre Higher risk 3 More than 4 curves per kilometre All Medium risk 2 3 to 6 curves per kilometre All Medium risk 2 2 to 4 curves per kilometre Lower risk 1 Less than 3 curves per kilometre Lower risk 1 Less than 2 curves per kilometre
A2. Geometry (vertical alignment) A2. Geometry (vertical alignment)
Classification Rural Classification Urban
Higher risk 3 Frequent steep grades (6% or more on 50% of the section or more) Higher risk 3 Frequent steep grades (6% or more on 50% of the section or more) All Medium risk 2 Some steep grades (4% or more on 50% of the section or more) All Medium risk 2 Some steep grades (4% or more on 50% of the section or more) Lower risk 1 Generally moderate grades or flat Lower risk 1 Generally moderate grades or flat An undulating road is considered to have medium risk. An undulating road is considered to have medium risk.
A3. Average Lane Width A3. Average Lane Width
Classification Rural 1 lane per direction 2+ lanes per direction Classification Urban 1 lane per direction 2+ lanes per direction
Available width is narrow compared to Available width is narrow compared to Available width is narrow compared to Available width is narrow compared to Higher risk 3 typical roadways with the same road typical roadways with the same road Higher risk 3 typical roadways with the same road typical roadways with the same road classification classification classification classification Available width is similar to typical Available width is similar to typical Available width is similar to typical Available width is similar to typical All Medium risk 2 roadways with the same road roadways with the same road All Medium risk 2 roadways with the same road roadways with the same road classification classification classification classification Available width is wide compared to Available width is wide compared to Available width is wide compared to Available width is wide compared to Lower risk 1 typical roadways with the same road typical roadways with the same road Lower risk 1 typical roadways with the same road typical roadways with the same road classification classification classification classification Average lane width = available paved surface width per direction, including shoulders and bicycle lanes, divided by the number of auto through Average lane width = available paved surface width per direction, including shoulders and bicycle lanes, divided by the number of auto through lanes lanes
B. Roadside Hazards B. Roadside Hazards
Classification Rural Classification Urban
5 or more hazards per kilometre, or continuous hazards on more than 50% of the 10 or more hazards per kilometre, or continuous hazards on more than 50% of Higher risk 3 Higher risk 3 segment length, on one or both sides the segment length, on one or both sides 2 to 5 hazards per kilometre, or continuous hazards on 25 to 50% of the segment 5 to 9 hazards per kilometre, or continuous hazards on 25 to 50% of the segment All Medium risk 2 All Medium risk 2 length, on one or both sides length, on one or both sides Less than 5 hazards per kilometre, any continuous hazards extend for less than Lower risk 1 Less than 2 hazards per kilometre Lower risk 1 25% of the segment length, or curb and gutter " Hazards" refer to any non breakaway fixed object or continuous non recoverable risk located within the clear zone as defined by the TAC " Hazards" refer to any non breakaway fixed object or continuous non recoverable risk located within the clear zone as defined by the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads Table 3.1.3.1. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads Table 3.1.3.1. * A continuous roadside or median barrier along a roadway is considered to have medium ri * A continuous roadside or median barrier along a roadway is considered to have medium ri Examples of "continuous" hazards: non-recoverable side slopes, rock face, water hazards, row of unprotected trees or utility poles Examples of "continuous" hazards: non-recoverable side slopes, rock face, water hazards, row of unprotected trees or utility poles
C1. Pedestrian Exposure (along the side of the road) C1. Pedestrian Exposure (along the side of the road)
Classification Rural Classification Urban
Higher risk 3 Roadway is used by pedestrians and no pedestrian facilities are provided Higher risk 3 Roadway is used by pedestrians and no pedestrian facilities are provided Roadway is used by pedestrians and a shoulder or trail adjacent to the roadway Roadway is used by pedestrians and a shoulder or trail adjacent to the roadway Medium risk 2 Medium risk 2 and at the same elevation as the roadway is provided and at the same elevation as the roadway is provided All All Roadway is used by pedestrians and physically separated pedestrian facilities Roadway is used by pedestrians and physically separated pedestrian facilities Lower risk 1 (sidewalks; trails away from the road) are available; or, roadway has negligible Lower risk 1 (sidewalks; trails away from the road) are available; or, roadway has negligible pedestrian demand pedestrian demand Freeways, Freeways, Expressways, N/A 0 Pedestrians are legally prohibited on the roadway Expressways, N/A 0 Pedestrians are legally prohibited on the roadway Highways Only Highways Only
For Freeways, Expressways, and Highways only, choose risk level "N/A" when pedestrians are legally prohibited on a roadway For Freeways, Expressways, and Highways only, choose risk level "N/A" when pedestrians are legally prohibited on a roadway
C2. Cyclist Exposure C2. Cyclist Exposure
Classification Rural Classification Urban
Higher risk 3 Roadway is used by cyclists and no road space is allocated to bikes Higher risk 3 Roadway is used by cyclists and no road space is allocated to bikes Medium risk 2 Roadway is used by cyclists and wide curb lane or shoulder is provided Medium risk 2 Roadway is used by cyclists and wide curb lane or shoulder is provided All Roadway is used by cyclists and a designated bike lane is provided; or, roadway All Roadway is used by cyclists and a designated bike lane is provided; or, roadway Lower risk 1 is used by cyclist and no road space is allocated to bikes but roadway has very Lower risk 1 is used by cyclist and no road space is allocated to bikes but roadway has very low traffic volumes; or, roadway has negligible cyclist demand low traffic volumes; or, roadway has negligible cyclist demand
Freeways, Freeways, Expressways, N/A 0 Cyclists are legally prohibited on the roadway Expressways, N/A 0 Cyclists are legally prohibited on the roadway Highways Only DRAFTHighways Only
For Freeways, Expressways, and Highways only, choose risk level "N/A" when cyclists are legally prohibited on a roadway For Freeways, Expressways, and Highways only, choose risk level "N/A" when cyclists are legally prohibited on a roadway
D. Pavement Surface D. Pavement Surface
Classification Rural Classification Urban
Higher risk 3 Poor or unpaved / gravel Higher risk 3 Poor or unpaved / gravel All Medium risk 2 Fair or rough (significant sections with pot holes, rutting, large cracks, etc) All Medium risk 2 Fair or rough (significant sections with pot holes, rutting, large cracks, etc) Lower risk 1 Good or smooth Lower risk 1 Good or smooth E1. Number of Intersections with Public Roads E1. Intersection Density (Including midblock crosswalks)
Classification Rural Classification Urban
All Use the evaluation methodology in the TABLES worksheet. All Use the evaluation methodology in the TABLES worksheet.
Evaluation methodology is presented in TABLE A. Evaluation methodology is presented in TABLE A.
E2. Number of Intersections with Private Access Driveways E2. Access Density (Including private driveways, and access to stores and businesses)
Classification Rural Classification Urban
All Use the evaluation methodology in the TABLES worksheet. All Use the evaluation methodology in the TABLES worksheet.
Evaluation methodology is presented in TABLE B. Evaluation methodology is presented in TABLE B.
E3. Number of Interchanges E3. Interchange Density
Classification Rural Classification Urban
Higher risk 3 Interchanges are on average less than 1,000 metres apart Higher risk 3 Interchanges are on average less than 1,000 metres apart Medium risk 2 Interchanges are on average 1,000 to 2,000 metres apart Medium risk 2 Interchanges are on average 1,000 to 2,000 metres apart All All Lower risk 1 Interchanges are on average more than 2,000 metres apart Lower risk 1 Interchanges are on average more than 2,000 metres apart N/A 0 No interchanges N/A 0 No interchanges
F. On-Street Parking F. On-Street Parking
Classification Rural Classification Urban
Higher risk 3 Parking permitted all day on one or both sides of the roadway Higher risk 3 Parking permitted all day on one or both sides of the roadway Medium risk 2 Parking permitted during part of the day on one or both sides of the roadway Medium risk 2 Parking permitted during part of the day on one or both sides of the roadway All All Lower risk 1 No parking allowed; or parking is permitted but rarely if ever actually utilized Lower risk 1 No parking allowed; or parking is permitted but rarely if ever actually utilized N/A 0 Parking is legally prohibited N/A 0 Parking is legally prohibited
DRAFT 3) Add up the weighted risk scores for the eleven evaluation criteria:
WEIGHTING FACTORS Rural Freeway Expressway Highway Arterial Collector Local Urban Freeway Expressway Highway Arterial Collector Local Criteria WF WF WF WF WF WF Criteria WF WF WF WF WF WF A1 Geometry (horizontal alignment) 33 3322Geometry (horizontal alignment) 33 32 11 A2 Geometry (vertical alignment) 33 3322Geometry (vertical alignment) 33 32 11 A3 Average Lane Width 1 553 11Average Lane Width 22 2222 B Roadside Hazards 3 44333Roadside Hazards 22 2111 Pedestrian Exposure (along the Pedestrian Exposure (along the C1 1 112 11 1 11333 side of the road) side of the road) C2 Cyclist Exposure 1 113 11Cyclist Exposure 1 11333 D Pavement Surface 22 2333Pavement Surface 11 1111 Number of Intersections with Number of Intersections with E1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Public Roads Public Roads Number of Intersections with Number of Intersections with E2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Private Access Driveways Private Access Driveways E3 Number of Interchanges 33 3111Number of Interchanges 33 3111 F On-Street Parking 11 1111On-Street Parking 11 1333
Rural Freeway Expressway Highway Arterial Collector Local Urban Freeway Expressway Highway Arterial Collector Local Max Score 69 + E1 84 + E1 84 + E1 81 + E1 60 + E1 60 + E1 Max Score 66 + E1 66 + E1 66 + E1 69 + E1 63 + E1 63 + E1 Min Score 12 17 17 20 13 13 Min Score 11 11 11 14 12 12
Total Risk Score
DRAFT Note: range of risk points last updated March 10, 2009
4a) For RURAL freeways, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: 4a) For URBAN freeways, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: Design Freeways Recommended Posted Speed Limit Freeways Design Speed Recommended Posted Speed Limit Speed 130 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 130 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 130 km/h and 130 km/h 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 and higher higher 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 120 km/h 120 km/h 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 and higher 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 and higher 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 110 km/h 110 km/h 26 and lower 27 to 35 36 to 43 44 to 51 52 and higher 26 and lower 27 to 35 36 to 43 44 to 51 52 and higher Rural Divided Freeway (2+ lanes) Urban Divided Freeway (2+ lanes) 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 100 km/h 100 km/h 26 and lower 27 to 39 40 to 49 50 and higher 26 and lower 27 39 40 to 49 50 and higher 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h and 90 km/h 23 and lower 24 to 39 40 23 and lower 24 to 39 40 and higher higher 80 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h and 80 km/h 27 and lower 28 27 and lower 28 and higher higher
4b) For RURAL expressways, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: 4b) For URBAN expressways, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: Design Expressways Recommended Posted Speed Limit Expressways Design Speed Recommended Posted Speed Limit Speed 130 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 130 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 130 km/h and 130 km/h 18 and lower 19 to 20 21 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 and higher higher 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 120 km/h 120 km/h 15 and lower 16 to 20 21 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 40 41 and higher 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 and higher 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h Rural Divided Expressway (1 lane or 2+ 110 km/h and 110 km/h 20 and lower 21 to 28 29 to 35 36 to 43 44 26 and lower 27 to 35 36 to 43 44 to 51 52 and higher lanes), higher Urban Divided Expressway (1 lane or 2+ lanes), Rural Undivided Expressway (1 lane or 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h Urban Undivided Expressway (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 2+ lanes) 100 km/h 100 km/h 20 and lower 21 to 39 40 to 49 50 and higher 26 and lower 27 to 39 40 to 49 50 and higher 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h and 90 km/h 23 and lower 24 to 39 40 21 and lower 22 to 39 40 and higher higher 80 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h and 80 km/h 27 and lower 28 25 and lower 26 and higher higher
4b) For RURAL Highway, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: 4b) For URBAN Highway, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: Design Highway Recommended Posted Speed Limit Highway Design Speed Recommended Posted Speed Limit Speed 130 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 130 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 130 km/h and 130 km/h 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 and higher higher 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 120 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 120 km/h 120 km/h 15 and lower 16 to 20 21 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 40 41 and higher 26 and lower 27 to 33 34 to 40 41 to 47 48 to 54 55 and higher 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h Rural Divided Highway (1 lane or 2+ 110 km/h and 110 km/h 20 and lower 21 to 32 33 to 39 40 to 47 48 26 and lower 27 to 35 36 to 43 44 to 51 52 and higher lanes), higher Urban Divided Highway (1 lane or 2+ lanes), Rural Undivided Highway (1 lane or 2+ 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h Urban Undivided Highway (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h lanes) 100 km/h 100 km/h 26 and lower 27 to 31 32 to 49 50 and higher 26 and lower 27 to 39 40 to 49 50 and higher 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h and 90 km/h 23 and lower 24 to 39 40 21 and lower 22 to 39 40 and higher higher 80 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h and 80 km/h 32 and lower 33 32 and lower 33 and higher higher
4c) For RURAL arterial roads, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: 4c) For URBAN arterial roads, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: Starting Arterials Recommended Posted Speed Limit Arterials Starting Speed Recommended Posted Speed Limit Speed 110 km/h 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h Rural Divided Major Arterial (2+ lanes) 110 km/h and Urban Divided Major Arterial (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 90 km/h 27 and lower 28 to 33 34 to 41 42 to 50 51 to 61 62 25 and lower 26 to 33 34 to 41 42 to 59 60 and higher higher Rural Undivided Major Arterial (2+ lanes) 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h Urban Undivided Major Arterial (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h 80 km/h Rural Divided Major Arterial (1 lane) 100 km/h and Urban Divided Minor Arterial (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 29 and lower 30 to 48 49 to 64 65 and higher 29 and lower 30 to37 to38 4546 to 53 54 to 61 62 Rural Divided Minor Arterial (2+ lanes) higher 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h Urban Undivided Minor Arterial (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 70 km/h Rural Undivided Major Arterial (1 lane) 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h 33 and lower 34 to 56 57 and higher Rural Divided Minor Arterial (1 lane) 90 km/h and 29 and lower 30 to 45 46 to 5758 to 68 69 Rural Undivided Minor Arterial (2+ lanes) higher 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h Rural Undivided Minor Arterial (1 lane) 80 km/h and 29 and lower 30 to 37 38 to 50 51 higher
4c) For RURAL collector roads, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: 4c) For URBAN collector roads, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: Starting Collectors Recommended Posted Speed Limit Collectors Starting Speed Recommended Posted Speed Limit Speed 90 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h Rural Divided Major Collector (2+ lanes) 90 km/h and Urban Divided Major Collector (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 80 km/h 29 and lower 30 to 40 41 to 52 53 to 62 63 29 and lower 30 to 36 37 to 39 40 and higher higher Rural Divided Major Collector (1 lane) 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h Urban Undivided Major Collector (1 lane or 2+ lanes 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h Rural Undivided Major Collector (2+ 70 km/h 80 km/h and Urban Divided Minor Collector (1 lane or 2+ lanes) 33 and lower 34 to 37 38 and higher lanes) 29 and lower 30 to 3637 to 50 51 Rural Divided Minor Collector (2+ lanes) higher 60 km/h 50 km/h 40 km/h Urban Undivided Minor Collector (1 lane or 2+ lanes 60 km/h Rural Undivided Major Collector (1 lane) 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h 33 and lower 34 to 50 51 and higher Rural Divided Minor Collector (1 lane) 70 km/h Rural Undivided Minor Collector (2+ 33 and lower 34 to 53 54 and higher lanes) 60 km/h 50 km/h 40 km/h Rural Undivided Minor Collector (1 lane) 60 km/h and 46 and lower 47 to 57 58 higher
4c) For RURAL local roads, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: 4c) For URBAN local roads, determine the recommended posted speed limit based on total risk score: Starting Locals Recommended Posted Speed Limit Locals Starting Speed Recommended Posted Speed Limit Speed 60 km/h 50 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h 40 km/h Rural Undivided or Divided Local (1 lane 60 km/h and Urban Undivided or Divided Local (1 lane or 2+ lane 50 km/h or 2+ lanes) 46 and lower 47 to 57 58 39 and lower 40 and higher higher
5) Follow speed limit management procedures as described in guidelines document 5) Follow speed limit management procedures as described in guidelines document DRAFT TABLE A. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS WITH PUBLIC ROADS
1) Points are assigned based on the traffic control type. Calculate total points based on the number and type oftraffic controls along the segment multiplied by assigned weighting factors. Points Each / Weighting Factors Include intersections at either end of the segment, if applicable. E1: NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS WITH PUBLIC ROADS # of Corridor Points Rural Urban Traffic Control Points Expresswa Expresswa Occurrences Length each Criteria Freeway Highway Arterial Collector Local Freeway Highway Arterial Collector Local y y WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF STOP-controlled (All-Way STOP or Two-Way ÷ x WF = STOP controlled intersection 4 4 4 4 4 0.25 4 4 4 4 4 0.25 STOP along roadway being evaluated) Signalized intersection (full signal or pedestrian ÷ x WF = Signalized intersection 5 5 5 6 3.5 0.75 5 5 5 5 3.5 0.75 signal)
Roundabout or traffic circle ÷ x WF = Roundabout or traffic circle 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 2 2 2 2 2 0.75
Midblock and intersection (where sidestreet STOP-controlled) signed and marked crosswalk ÷ x WF = Crosswalk 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 1 1 5 1 0.75 that is well-utilized** or special crosswalk
Active, at-grade railroad crossing ÷ x WF = Active, at-grade railroad crossing 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Sidestreet STOP-controlled (uncontrolled along ÷ x WF = Sidestreet STOP-controlled or lane 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 roadway being evaluated) or lane Total ** well-utilized = more than 10 equivalent adult units per peak hour in a rural area, and Points: more than 20 equivalent adult units per peak hour in an urban area Refer to TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual for the calculation of equivalent adult units
After being rounded to the nearest whole number, the total points is equivalent to the NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS WITH PUBLIC ROADS risk score.
TABLE B. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS WITH PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS
1) Points are assigned based on whether left turn movement is allowed at a driveway providing access to active (currently occupied) properties. Calculate total points based on the number of driveways and whether left turn movement is permitted or not and multiplied by assigned weighting factors. Include accesses at either end of the segment, if applicable. Points Each / Weighting Factors E2: NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS WITH PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS (cap at 15) # of Corridor Points Rural Urban Left turn movement Points Expresswa Expresswa Occurrences Length each Criteria Freeway Highway Arterial Collector Local Freeway Highway Arterial Collector Local y y WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF WF
Some or all left turn movements permitted ÷ x WF = Left turn movements permitted 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 Right-in-right-out OR right-in only OR right-out ÷ x WF = Right-in / Right-out only 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 1 0.35 0.35 only Total Points: After being rounded to the nearest whole number with a cap at 15, the total pointsDRAFT is equivalent to the NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS WITH PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS risk score. Clearview Traffic Assessment Study Appendix C2 - Summary of TAC Speed Analysis
Both Directions Difference Posted Average 85th between 10 km/h Posted Speed Limit Section AADT (Both Speed percentile Operating Pace Total Risk Reduction Number Road Name From To Length Direction) Limit Speed Speed and Speed Score Recommondataion (m) (vpd) (km/h) (vpd) Posted Speed (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) 1 Lavender Hill Road County Road 9 Mulmur / Clearview Townline 80 3480 210 71 -9 57-66 33 -10 2 Concession 11 15 / 16 Sideroad Ewing Road 80 1180 155 70 -10 55-64 26 0 3 Concession 10 County Road 124 County Road 91 80 3640 288 75 -5 57-66 29 0 4 Concession 10 County Road 91 33 / 34 Sideroad 80 5480 785 77 -3 55-64 29 0 5 Concession 10 33 / 34 Sideroad Poplar Sideroad 80 3680 1910 79 -1 57-66 31 -10 6 Concession 6 Poplar Sideroad 33 / 34 Sideroad 80 3670 1118 88 8 73-82 25 0 7 Concession 6 33 / 34 Sideroad County Road 91 80 5480 846 94 14 79-88 21 0 8 Concession 6 County Road 91 15 / 16 Sideroad 80 5490 542 92 12 73-82 23 0 9 Riverside Drive 15 / 16 Sideroad County Road 9 70 4790 840 85 15 65-74 26 0 10 Concession 5 Mulmur / Clearview Townline 6 / 7 Sideroad 80 3710 331 86 6 65-74 26 0 11 Fairgrounds Road S County Road 9 15 / 16 Sideroad 80 3750 1029 75 -5 61-70 27 0 12 Fairgrounds Road S 15 / 16 Sideroad County Road 91 80 5500 1378 95 15 79-88 22 0 13 Fairgrounds Road N County Road 91 30 / 31 Sideroad 80 3650 1108 101 21 81-90 22 0 14 Fairgrounds Road N 30 / 31 Sideroad 33 / 34 Sideroad 80 1850 1077 99 19 79-88 25 0 15 Concession 3 South - 6 / 7 Sideroad County Road 42 George Street 80 2300 666 75 -5 57-66 18 0 16 Centreline Road Mulmur / Clearview Townline Concession 2 80 3310 689 90 10 71-80 23 0 17 Centreline Road Concession 2 County Road 9 80 2260 1425 96 16 81-90 25 0 18 Centreline Road County Road 9 Concession 7 80 3210 2261 94 14 73-82 23 0 19 Centreline Road Concession 7 Warrignton Road 80 3630 2599 103 23 81-90 21 0 20 Centreline Road Warrington Road Highway 26 80 2070 2064 95 15 79-88 25 0 21 Klondike Park Road Highway 26 Wasaga Beach Town Limits 80 5180 1967 97 17 79-88 18 0 22 3 / 4 Sideroad Sunnidale Highway 26 Concession 9 80 2750 701 87 7 71-80 18 0 23 3 / 4 Sideroad Sunnidale Concession 9 County Road 9 80 6720 843 104 24 87-96 17 0 24 3 / 4 Sideroad Sunnidale County Road 9 Concession 2 80 1550 589 100 20 81-90 21 0 25 Hogback Road Webster Road Concession 2 80 4830 243 100 20 81-90 30 -10 26 Hogback Road Concession 2 County Road 9 80 2760 499 99 19 81-90 30 -10 27 Sunnidale/Tosorontio Townline 6 / 7 Sideroad County Road 10 80 7100 2234 98 18 81-90 20 0 28 Switzer Street County Road 9 Creemore Ave. 50 2110 516 78 28 63-72 33 0 29 Creemore Ave County Road 9 Switzer Street 80 2180 71 65 -15 47-56 32 -10 30 Creemore Ave Switzer Street Concession 7 80 2860 97 85 5 63-72 31 -10 31 Concession 12 Klondike Park Road County Road 10 80 2430 3051 95 15 79-88 26 0 32 Concession 12 County Road 10 County Road 7 80 3000 3315 99 19 81-90 24 0 33 Concession 9 County Road 10 Centreline Road 80 6700 951 104 24 81-90 23 0 34 Concession 7 County Road 10 Centreline Road 80 7300 279 103 23 81-90 25 0 35 27 / 28 Sideroad Highway 26 Fairgrounds Road N 80 2600 127 64 -16 39-48 31 -10 36 27 / 28 Sideroad Fairgrounds Road N Concession 6 80 2750 150 58 -22 33-42 31 -10 37 36 / 37 Sideroad County Road 124 Concession 10 80 2660 562 80 0 63-72 40 0 38 36 / 37 Sideroad County Road 124 Concession 6 80 2830 467 72 -8 57-66 30 -10 39 Batteaux Road County Road 124 Concession 6 50 2780 554 64 14 49-58 37 0 40 3 / 4 Sideroad Nottawasaga County Road 42 Centreline Road 80 2750 517 96 16 79-88 20 0 41 Center Street County Road 42 Side Street 50 875 N/A N/A N/A N/A 42 0 42 Concession 6 County Road 91 27 / 28 Sideroad 80 1840 N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 0 43 Concession 10 30 / 31 Sideroad 33 / 34 Sideroad 80 1830 N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 0 44 Creemore Ave Switzer Street DRAFT350m east of the intersection 50 350 N/A N/A N/A N/A 45 0 45 Devil's Glen Entrance County Road 124 South Road 30 730 N/A N/A N/A N/A 36 0 46 Fairground Road S. Sideroad 12 / 13 Sideroad 15 / 16 80 1830 N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 0 47 Milltown Road Countyroad 124 730m east of the intersection 50 730 N/A N/A N/A N/A 45 0 48 William Street Pine Street Oak Street 50 128 N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 0
Appendix D
Traffic Speed / Volume Data
Appendix D
DRAFT
Clearview Traffic Assessment Study Appendix D - Summary of Speed Analysis
Eastbound / Northbound Traffic Westbound / Southbound Traffic Both Directions Risk Level Difference Difference Difference between between TAC Final Posted Sectio 85th between 10 km/h 85th 10 km/h Averag 85th 10 km/h Risk of Risk of Risk of Sidestree TAC Operating Operating Risk of Risk of Risk of Risk of Risk of Left turn Recomen Recommen Speed n Percentile Operating Pace Percentil Pace e Daily percentil Pace Average Pedestria Cyclist t STOP- Risk Number Road Name From To Speed and Speed and Roadside Pavement Horizontal Vertical On-Street movements d Posted d Posted Comments Limit Length Speed Speed and Speed e Speed Speed Volume e Speed Speed Lane n Exposur controlle Score Posted Posted Hazards Surface* Geometry Geometry Parking permitted Speed Speed (km/h) (m) (km/h) Posted (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) (vpd) (km/h) (km/h) Width Exposure e d or lane (2-way) Speed Speed (km/h) (km/h) Speed (km/h) (km/h) (km/h) Mulmur / Operating speed already reduced due to Lavender Hill 1 County Road 9 Clearview 80 3480 72 -8 57-66 70 -10 57-66 3480 71 81 57-66 Higher Lower Higher Medium Higher Lower Lower Lower 1 27 33 70 70 gravel surface. Recommend speed Road Townline reduction to 70 km/h Reduction in operating speed due to gravel 2 Concession 11 15 / 16 Sideroad Ewing Road 80 1180 73 -7 57-66 67 -13 49-58 1180 70 83 55-64 Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 2 7 26 80 80 surface. Reduction in operating speed due to poor 3 Concession 10 County Road 124 County Road 91 80 3640 72 -8 55-64 77 -3 57-66 3640 75 78 57-66 Medium Lower Higher Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower 1 24 29 80 80 pavement surface. Reduction in operating speed due to gravel 4 Concession 10 County Road 91 33 / 34 Sideroad 80 5480 81 1 62-71 71 -9 49-58 5480 77 86 55-64 Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower 1 38 29 80 80 surface. Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h, as 5 Concession 10 33 / 34 Sideroad Poplar Sideroad 80 3680 84 4 71-80 67 -13 55-64 3680 79 92 57-66 Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower 136317070per TAC risk analysis and engineering review of operating conditions. 6 Concession 6 Poplar Sideroad 33 / 34 Sideroad 80 3670 90 10 73-82 87 7 71-80 3670 88 81 73-82 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 2 37 25 80 80 7 Concession 6 33 / 34 Sideroad County Road 91 80 5480 93 13 79-88 94 14 79-88 5480 94 80 79-88 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower 1 43 21 80 80 8 Concession 6 County Road 91 15 / 16 Sideroad 80 5490 95 15 79-88 88 8 71-80 5490 92 84 73-82 Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower 2 33 238080 9 Riverside Drive 15 / 16 Sideroad County Road 9 70 4790 89 19 71-80 79 9 63-72 4790 85 76 65-74 Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Lower Higher Lower 0 16 26 70 70 Mulmur / Clearview 10 Concession 5 6 / 7 Sideroad 80 3710 88 8 71-80 83 3 65-74 3710 86 83 65-74 Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Lower Lower 3 16 26 80 80 Townline Fairgrounds 11 County Road 9 15 / 16 Sideroad 80 3750 75 -5 57-66 75 -5 63-72 3750 75 80 61-70 Medium Lower Medium Lower Medium Medium Medium Lower 1 26 27 80 80 Road S Fairgrounds 12 15 / 16 Sideroad County Road 91 80 5500 96 16 79-88 89 9 73-82 5500 95 86 79-88 Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower 2 29 22 80 80 Road S Fairgrounds 13 County Road 91 30 / 31 Sideroad 80 3650 102 22 81-90 99 19 81-90 3650 101 82 81-90 Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower 2 26 22 80 80 Road N Fairgrounds 14 30 / 31 Sideroad 33 / 34 Sideroad 80 1850 103 23 81-90 93 13 79-88 1850 99 86 79-88 Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower 1 20 25 80 80 Road N Concession 3 15 South - 6 / 7 County Road 42 George Street 80 2300 76 -4 63-72 73 -7 57-66 2300 75 82 57-66 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 1 4 18 80 80 Sideroad Mulmur/Clearview 16 Centreline Road Concession 2 80 3310 95 15 73-82 85 5 71-80 3310 90 85 71-80 Medium Lower Lower Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower 3 14 23 80 80 Townline 17 Centreline Road Concession 2 County Road 9 80 2260 96 16 81-90 98 18 81-90 2260 96 78 81-90 Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower 1 15 258080 18 Centreline Road County Road 9 Concession 7 80 3210 85 5 71-80 99 19 81-90 3210 94 75 73-82 Medium Lower Lower Lower Higher Lower Lower Lower 4 12 23 8080 19 Centreline Road Concession 7 Warrignton Road 80 3630 106 26 95-104 99 19 81-90 3630 103 84 81-90 Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 417218080 20 Centreline Road Warrington Road Highway 26 80 2070 95 15 79-88 96 16 79-88 2070 95 79 79-88 Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 3 16 258080 Klondike Park Wasaga Beach 21 Highway 26 80 5180 89 9 73-82 102 22 81-90 5180 97 75 79-88 Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 2 22 18 80 80 Road Town Limits 3 / 4 Sideroad 22 Highway 26 Concession 9 80 2750 84 4 71-80 89 9 73-82 2750 87 78 71-80 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 2 9 18 80 80 Sunnidale 3 / 4 Sideroad 23 Concession 9 County Road 9 80 6720 104 24 81-90 105 25 87-96 6720 104 79 87-96 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 4 19 17 80 80 Sunnidale 3 / 4 Sideroad 24 County Road 9 Concession 2 80 1550 92 12 79-88 105 25 87-96 1550 100 75 81-90 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 1 10 21 80 80 Sunnidale Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h, as 25 Hogback Road Webster Road Concession 2 80 4830 103 23 84-93 96 16 79-88 4830 100 84 81-90 Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower 4 49 30 70 70 per TAC risk analysis and engineering review of operating conditions. Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h, as 26 Hogback Road Concession 2 County Road 9 80 2760 102 22 82-91 95 15 79-88 2760 99 84 81-90 Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower 3 23 307070 per TAC risk analysis and engineering review of operating conditions. Sunnidale/Tosoro 27 6 / 7 Sideroad County Road 10 80 7100 99 19 81-90 97 17 81-90 7100 98 81 81-90 Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Medium Lower 5 47 20 80 80 ntio Townline 28 Switzer Street County Road 9 Creemore Ave. 50 2110 76 26 63-72 79 29 63-72 2110 78 49 63-72 Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Medium Lower Lower 5 34 33 50 50 29 Creemore Ave County Road 9 Switzer Street 80 2180 65 -15 44-53 65 -15 47-56 2180 65 80 47-56 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Lower 1 25 32 70 70 30 Creemore Ave Switzer Street Concession 7 80 2860 85 5 59-68 84 4 60-69 2860 85 81 63-72 Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Lower Lower 0 24 31 70 70 31 Concession 12 Klondike Park Road County Road 10 80 2430 95 15 79-88 96 16 79-88 2430 95 79 79-88 Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Medium Medium Lower 1 14 26 80 80 32 Concession 12 County Road 10 County Road 7 80 3000 94 14 79-88 101 21 81-90 3000 99 78 81-90 Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 1 20 24 80 80 33 Concession 9 County Road 10 Centreline Road 80 6700 108 28 89-98 95 15 79-88 6700 104 89 81-90 Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 340238080 34 Concession 7 County Road 10 Centreline Road 80 7300 109 29 89-98 94 14 79-88 7300 103 89 81-90 Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Medium Medium Lower 3 39 25 80 80 Fairgrounds Road Reduction in operating speed due to gravel 35 27 / 28 Sideroad Highway 26 80 2600 65 -15 39-48 63 -17 33-42 2600 64 81 39-48 Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 1 15 31 70 70 N surface Reduction in operating speed due to gravel 36 27 / 28 Sideroad Fairgrounds Road N Concession 6 80 2750 62 -18 39-48 52 -28 30-39 2750 58 86 33-42 Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0 17 31 70 70 surface 37 36 / 37 Sideroad County Road 124 Concession 10 50 2660 80 30 65-74 80 30 63-72 2660 80 50 63-72 Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Medium Lower 0 63 40 50 50 Recommend speed reduction to 70 km/h, as 38 36 / 37 Sideroad County Road 124 Concession 6 80 2830 73 -7 57-66 71 -9 55-64 2830 72 81 57-66 Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Medium Lower 252307070per TAC risk analysis and engineering review of operating conditions. 39 Batteaux Road County Road 124 Concession 6 50 2780 64 14 49-58 64 14 49-58 2780 64 50 49-58 Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Medium Lower 2 59 37 50 50 3 / 4 Sideroad 40 County Road 42 Centreline Road 80 2750 96 16 79-88 95 15 79-88 2750 96 81 79-88 Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0 11 20 80 80 Nottawasaga 41 Center Street County Road 42 Side Street 50 875 48 -2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 875 N/A N/A N/A Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Lower Medium Medium 2 20 42 50 50 42 Concession 6 County Road 91 27/28 Sideroad 80 1840 N/A N/A N/A 87 7 N/A 1000 N/A N/A N/A Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Lower 0 3 21 80 80 43 Concession 10 30 / 31 Sideroad 33/34 Sideroad 80 1830 84 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1000 N/A N/A N/A Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0 0 25 8080 350m east of the 44 Creemore Ave Switzer Street 50 350 60 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1000 N/A N/A N/A Higher Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Lower 0 29 45 50 50 intersection Devil's Glen 45 County Road 124 South Road 30 730 N/A N/A N/A 37DRAFT 7 N/A 1000 N/A N/A N/A Higher Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower 0 0 36 30 30 Entrance Fairground Road 46 Sideroad 12 / 13 Sideroad 15/16 80 1830 88 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1000 N/A N/A N/A Medium Lower Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower 0 3 25 80 80 S 730m east of the 47 Milltown Road Countyroad 124 50 730 45 -5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 729 N/A N/A N/A Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Lower 1 20 45 50 50 intersection Reduction in operating speed due to radar 48 William Street Pine Street Oak Street 50 128 36 -14 N/A N/A N/A N/A 540 N/A N/A N/A Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Medium 2 50 39 50 50 speed sign. * Roads with no pavement are considered to be high risk and roads with poor pavement conditions are considered to be medium risk
Appendix E
Traffic Calming Definitions and Pros and Cons
DRAFT Appendix E
Appendix E – Traffic Calming Measures Definitions and Pros and Cons
DEFINITIONS
Traffic Calming – The combination of mainly physical measures that reduce vehicle speeds and the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.
Vertical Deflection • Speed Cushions – A segmented speed hump which allows for the passage of larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles or buses without difficulty while still reducing passenger vehicle speeds.
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Speed Humps / Speed Tables – A raised area of a roadway, which deflects both the wheels and body of a traversing vehicle. A speed table is an elongated raised speed hump with a flat-topped section that is long enough to raise the entire wheelbase of a vehicle. A Speed Kidney is an arrangementDRAFT of three small humps, elongated with a curvilinear shape in the direction of travel, requiring vehicles to take a curvilinear path to avoid the vertical deflection.
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Raised Intersections / Raised Crosswalks – A raised crosswalk is a pedestrian crosswalk at an intersection or mid-block constructed at a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway. A raised intersection is a full intersection, including crosswalks, constructed at a higher elevation than theDRAFT adjacent roadways.
DRAFT
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) Surface Treatment • Transverse Rumble Strips – Raised buttons, bars or grooves closely spaced at regular intervals on the roadway that create both noise and vibration in a moving vehicle.
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Sidewalk Extensions / Textured Crosswalks – A sidewalk that is continued across a local street intersection at the level of the roadway and a textured and/or patterned surface which contrasts with the adjacent roadway is incorporated. DRAFT
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Textured Pavement – Roadway pavement that incorporates a textured and/or patterned surface which contrasts other adjacent roadways in the surrounding area alerting drivers of the potential need to reduce speed.
DRAFT
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Converging Chevrons / Dragon’s Teeth / Full-Lane Transverse Bars / Peripheral Transverse Bars / On-Road ‘Sign’ Pavement Markings − Converging chevrons are pavement markings painted in the shape of a V pointing in the roadway travel direction to create the illusion that a vehicle’s speed is increasing.
Source: Iowa State University, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
− Dragon teeth are a series of longitudinal triangle pavement markings along the edge of the travelled lane to give the impression of roadway narrowing. DRAFT
Source: International Road Assessment Programme, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
− Full-lane transverse bars are a series of parallel pavement markings which extend across the majority of the travelled lane width to create the illusion that a vehicle’s speed is increasing.
DRAFT
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) − On-road ‘sign’ pavement markings provide information that would typically be shown to drivers through signage, however the information is painted on the roadway to provide a larger and different visual perspective.
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
− Peripheral transverse bars are a series of parallel pavement markings along the edge of the travelled lane widths placed closer together with distance to create the illusion that a vehicle’s speed is increasing.
DRAFT
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • LED Pavement Markings – LEDs placed in the pavement to create dynamic indications allowing them to be used in a variety of ways such as displaying an advisory speed limit for a curve. The LEDs can behave like a vehicle-actuated sign and are not limited to dark conditions.
Source: HIL-Tech Ltd., cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Optical Illusion Pavement Markings – Artistic pavement markings using colors and shading to create an optical illusion in an attempt to cause drivers to reduce their speed. DRAFT
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
Roadway Narrowing • Curb Extensions / Neckdowns / Chokers – A horizontal intrusion of the curb into the roadway resulting in a narrower roadway width.
DRAFT
Source: Watt Consulting Group, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• On-Street Parking – The reduction of the roadway width available for vehicle movement by allowing motor vehicles to park adjacent to the curb.
Source: Marshall Elizer, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Raised Median Islands – An island constructed on the centerline of a two-way roadway to reduce the overall width of the adjacent travel lanes. DRAFT
Source: Watt Consulting Group, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Lane Narrowing – Reduced lane widths using pavement markings or other features with the intention for drivers to perceive the roadway to be less comfortable at higher speeds.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Vertical Centreline Treatment – The use of vertical treatments such as flexible post-mounted delineators or raised pavement markers to create a centre median with the purpose of giving drivers a perception of lane narrowing and creating a sense of constriction.
DRAFT
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Road Diets – A reconfiguration of a roadway where the number of travel lanes and/or the effective width of the road is reduced to allocate the reclaimed space for other uses such as bicycle lanes.
Source: City of Fresno, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
Horizontal Deflection • Chicanes – A series of curb extensions on alternating sides of a roadway, which narrow the roadway and require drivers to steer from one side of the roadway to the other to travel through the chicane.DRAFT Typically, a series of at least three curb extensions is used.
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Traffic Circles / Traffic Buttons / Mini-Roundabouts – A raised island located in the centre of an intersection, which requires vehicles to travel through the intersection in a circular, counter-clockwise direction around the island. DRAFT
Source: Tollazzi (2015), cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Curb Radius Reduction – The reconstruction of an intersection corner using a smaller radius, usually in the 3.0 to 5.0 m range.
DRAFT
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Lateral Shift – A roadway alignment change, introducing a jog to the left or to the right.
Source: City of Stockton, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
Signage • Speed Display Devices (Radar Speed Boards) – Interactive signs that use an illuminated message to display vehicle speeds to oncoming motorists as they approach.
DRAFT
Source: WSP Group, cited in Primer on Speed Display Devices (TAC, 2017)
• Vehicle Activated Signs – Solar powered electronic roadside warning signs equipped with radar speed detectors and an illuminated display. Signs alert drivers to a hazard ahead when activated byDRAFT speeds surpassing a programmed threshold.
Source: www.signatureltd.com, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Traffic Calmed Neighbourhood Sign – Sign notifying motorists that they are entering a “traffic calmed” neighbourhood and that they may encounter physical traffic calming devices. DRAFT
Source: Township of King Transportation Master Plan Public Information Centre #2 (July 2014)
Access Restriction • Directional Closure – A curb extension or vertical barrier extending to approximately the centreline of a roadway, effectively obstructing (prohibiting) the movement of one direction of traffic.
DRAFT
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Full Closure – A barrier extending across the entire width of a roadway, which obstructs all motor vehicle traffic movements from continuing along the roadway.
Source: City of Ottawa, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Diverter – A raised barrier placed diagonally across an intersection, that forces traffic to turn and prevents traffic from proceeding straight through the intersection.
DRAFT
Source: Paul Krueger / Creative Commons, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Intersection Channelization – Raised islands located in an intersection, used to obstruct specific traffic movements and physically direct traffic through an intersection.
Source: City of Stockton, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Raised Median Through Intersection – An island located on the centreline of a two-way roadway through an intersection, which prevents left turns and through movements to and from the intersecting roadway.
DRAFT
Source: Steven Vance / www.nacto.org, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Right-in/Right-out Island – A raised triangle island at an intersection approach which obstructs left turns and through movements to and from the intersecting street or driveway.
Source: City of San Antonio, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
Traffic Control • Rest-on-Red Signal Phasing – Programming of an additional phase into signalized intersections where the red light is activated for all approaches when there is no traffic or pedestrian demand. The green light is only activated when a vehicle or pedestrian initiates the change either through detection by the signal loop or pedestrian push button. DRAFT
Source: www.cbc.ca, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Variable Speed Limits – Dynamic or adjustable road signs displaying variable statutory speed limits.
Source: Mark Siegel / Seattle Times, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Roundabouts – A modern roundabout is a type of circular intersection in which vehicles travel counter-clockwise around a central island. Vehicles entering the roundabout must yield to circulating traffic. Roundabouts have specific geometric design and traffic control features to enhance safety and capacity of the intersection. DRAFT
Source: Tollazzi (2015), cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) • Pedestrian Crossovers (PXO) – Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations and the Highway Traffic Act. PXO’s may also include amber flashing beacons.
Source: Burnside, 2018
Shared Space • Shared Space – A design concept commonly used in Europe where the priority for users is shifted from vehicles towards cyclists and pedestrians as they are fee to cross anywhere. Often, there are no pavement markings, traffic signals, signs, or barriers, the absence of which requires drivers to be attentive. DRAFT
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
Gateways • Gateways – A combination of traffic calming devices, such as roundabouts, traffic islands, road narrowing, pavement markings, landscaping, etc. that provide a message to help identify transitional zones between rural areas and urban/rural residential zones, villages, or hamlets.
DRAFT
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
Enforcement • Aircraft / Drone Radar Enforcement – Involves light aircraft or drones that monitor vehicle speeds on freeways and highways through transverse pavement markings placed on the roadway.
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Fixed Speed Enforcement – Permanently installed cameras that photograph vehicles operating at unsafe/high speeds without the presence of manned law enforcement.
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Mobile Speed Enforcement – Radar photography units that are mounted in mobile vehicles or trailers that areDRAFT deployed at areas identified for speed enforcement.
Source: Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Section Speed Control – “Section Control” or “Point-to-Point Control” is a new approach to automated speed enforcement which operates by calculating the average speed of a vehicle between two points on a section of roadway using license plate recognition technology.
DRAFT Source: Stoelhorst (2005), cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Red Light Cameras – Traffic cameras at signalized intersections set to photograph vehicles that enter an intersection after the light has turned red, intended to reduce right-angle collisions caused by motorists violating the signal.
Source: Michael Barrett (Sean Pearce / Aurora Banner, 2013)
• “Speed Watch” Program – Volunteers and residents are involved to help monitor traffic and record license plates of vehicles travelling at excessive speeds. Letters may be sent to registered owners of these vehicles by the authorities alerting them of their excessive speeding.
Source: York Region, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018) Education ProgramsDRAFT • Active and Safe Routes to School Program – A community-based initiative that promotes the use of active transportation for the daily trip to school while addressing traffic safety issues.
Source: www.saferoutetoschool.ca, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Pace Car Program – A community awareness strategy based on drivers signing a pledge to drive within the speed limit, effectively becoming mobile traffic calming devices. Bumper stickers are placed on the vehicles to alert other drivers of their presence in the community.
Source: www.ecologyaction.ca, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
• Targeted Traffic Education Campaigns – Events, programs or media campaigns to try and raise awareness on road safety issues. Education campaigns can address multiple types of driver awareness, including speeding (other types include impaired driving, distracted driving, seatbelt DRAFTawareness, aggressive driving etc.).
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, cited in Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2nd Ed. (TAC, February 2018)
DRAFT Type of Traffic Calming Calming Pros Cons Measure Measure - Slight impact on emergency and transit vehicles. - Negative effects on snow plowing/removal. Cushions must be removed in winter months for snow removal if installation is not permanent. - Slows passenger vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the cushion. Reduction in 85th percentile speed up to 8 - May interfere with pavement overlays. km/h.3 - Increased noise levels due to braking and accelerating. - Allows emergency and transit vehicles and bicycles to pass through the cushion without slowing down. - Inappropriate for arterial roads or speeds over 50 km/h or grades over 8%. Speed Cushions - May result in traffic volume reductions of approximately 30%.3 - May result in unwanted traffic diversions to neighbouring streets. - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower speeds and volumes. - May result in increased speeds to “make-up” for lost time after passing speed cushions. A series of speed - Low cost. cushions is more effective than a single installation; spacing can range from 60 to 250 m, depending on the desired 85th percentile speed.3 - Increases gas consumption and air emissions5. - May require loss of parking. - May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures. - Negative effects on snow plowing/removal. Speed humps must be removed in winter months for snow removal if installation is not permanent. - May interfere with pavement overlays. - May impact drainage. - Slows vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the speed hump/table. Reduction in 85th percentile speed between - May be problematic for emergency, maintenance, and transit vehicles (e.g., reductions in emergency response 6 kmh and 13 km/h.3 times and increases in transit times and snow clearing times). Speed humps/tables increase delays by between - May result in traffic volume reductions of between 15% and 27%3. 2.3 and 15 seconds for emergency response times.3 Speed Humps/Table - Significant conflict reduction has been reported in many jurisdictions3. - Inappropriate for arterial roads or speeds over 50 km/h or grades over 8% (5% if using kidney-shaped speed Vertical - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower speeds and volumes. humps). Deflection - Low to medium cost. - Some cyclists may experience loss of control at speeds over 40 km/h.3 - May result in increased speeds to “make-up” for lost time after passing speed humps/tables. A series of speed humps is more effective than a single installation; spacing can range from 60 to 250 m, depending on the desired 85th percentile speed. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions5. - May require loss of parking. - May be problematic for emergency, maintenance and transit vehicles (e.g., reductions in emergency response and snow clearing times, increased discomfort to transit users). Raised crosswalks increases delay by 3.8 seconds per location for fire vehicles; raised intersections slow emergency vehicles to approximately 25 km/h.3 - May interfere with pavement overlays. - Slows vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the vertical deflection. Reduction in 85th percentile speed from 5 to - Increased traffic noise levels due to braking and accelerating. 13 km/h for raised crosswalks or up to 10 km/h for raised intersections.3 - May impact drainage. - Improves pedestrian visibility. 53% to 54% of drivers yielding to pedestrians compared to 13% to 18% before.3 - Inappropriate for arterial roads or speeds over 50 km/h or grades over 8%. Raised Intersections, - May result in traffic volume reductions up to 26% (raised crosswalks).3 - May result in unwanted traffic diversions to neighbouring streets (up to 7%3). Raised Crosswalks - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower speeds. - May result in a false sense of pedestrian security. - Easier crossing for pedestrians with assistive devices. - Some cyclists may experience loss of control at speeds over 40 km/h.3- - Low to medium cost (raised crosswalks). - Increases gas consumption and air emissions5. - Drivers may not understand how to react when approaching a raised crosswalk or intersections with pedestrians about to cross6. - Raised intersections are relatively expensive compared to other permanent traffic calming measures1. Medium to high cost (raised intersections). - Increase in noise levels near rumble strips (3 to 4 dB3). Avoid within 200 m radius of residential areas. - May detract from appearance of street. - Alerts motorists of unusual conditions. Transverse Rumble - May have negative affect on snow plowing operations. - May reduce vehicle speeds. Reduction in 85th percentile speed between 3 and 8 km/h.3 Strips Surface - May have negative impact on cyclists. - Low cost. Treatment - Potential drainage issues, particularly in winter months when undrained water may freeze at strips. - Not a stand-alone speed control device, but is a warning device. Sidewalk Extensions / - Extension of sidewalk and textured surface reinforcesDRAFT pedestrian priority and may reduce pedestrian-vehicle - May result in increased maintenance requirements (e.g., increased street sweeping times, differential settlement Textured Crosswalks conflict. of pavement transition). Type of Traffic Calming Calming Pros Cons Measure Measure - May be more detectable for visually-impaired pedestrians due to appropriate texture. - Less effective in winter conditions due to snow/ice cover. - May improve aesthetics of the street. - May increase traffic noise on textured surface. - Low to medium costs. - May create traction and/or stability problems for seniors, the disabled and wheelchairs. - Requires regular maintenance. - Brick or unit pavers may create problems related to maintenance, pedestrians, bicycles and accessibility. - Alerts drivers to the potential need to reduce speed. Textured Pavement - Not applicable for arterial roads. - Enhances the character of the street and improves aesthetics. - Less effective in winter conditions due to snow/ice cover. - May create additional noise from vehicle wheels. Converging Chevrons / Dragon’s Teeth / - May slow 85th percentile vehicle speeds between 5 and 11 km/h (converging chevrons), 5 to 15 km/h (full-lane - Pavement markings require regular maintenance. Full-Lane Transverse transverse bars), 6 to 14 km/h (on-road ‘sign’ pavement markings) and up to 8 km/h (peripheral transverse - May be less effective in winter due to snow/ice cover. Bars / Peripheral bars).3 - Pavement markings are only visible in a localized area and therefore may not provide advanced warning. Transverse Bars / - Can be implemented easily and quickly. - Impacts on speeds may be reduced over time. On-Road ‘Sign’ - Low cost. Pavement Markings - May reduce collisions at critical locations. LED Pavement Pavement - LEDs can melt snow cover and are visible in daylight conditions. - Risk of damage by snow plows. Markings Markings - Can display alternate messages, thereby attracting more attention from drivers. - Considered an emerging technology. - Low to medium cost. - Pavement markings will require regular maintenance. - May be less effective in winter months due to snow/ice cover. Optical Illusion - May reduce mean speed up to 1 km/h.3 - May cause some drivers to react adversely and perform a hazardous manoeuvre. Pavement Markings - Low cost. - Not applicable for arterial roads. - Only applicable to low speed roads. - Considered an emerging measure. - May adversely impact cyclist operations. - May be problematic for emergency, maintenance, and transit vehicles. - Reduces the distance that pedestrians must travel to cross a roadway. Curb Extensions / - May require drainage system adjustments. - Better mutual visibility between pedestrians and motorists. Neckdowns / Chokers - Long vehicles may need to cross into oncoming travel lanes to negotiate turns at intersections with curb - Slows vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the curb extensions. Reduction in speed between 2 and 8 km/h.3 extensions. - Medium to high cost. - Inappropriate for arterial roads, except for urban commercial streets, or on roads with over 10,000 vpd. - May be problematic for maintenance vehicles. - May slow traffic near parked vehicles. - May reduce visibility of pedestrians crossing roadways. - Provides additional buffer between vehicles and pedestrians. - Should not be implemented if it results in substandard roadway widths to accommodate transit or emergency On-street Parking - Reduction in noise volumes due to lower speeds. vehicles or impact snow storage. Roadway - Low to medium cost. - May impact driveway access / visibility. Narrowing - May increase rear-end or sideswipe collisions. - High cost if road widening is required to accommodate parking. - May restrict driveway access. - May require maintenance if trees/shrubs are contained within the median. - May require on-street parking be removed. - May increase snow removal costs. - May slow vehicles near medians. Reductions in speeds of between 3 and 8 km/h.3 Raised Median - May squeeze cyclists if no bicycle lanes. - May provide refuge for pedestrians crossing the road. Islands - May increase speeds if mid-block left turn movements are not possible, requiring circuitous travel. - Potential aesthetic feature. - Inappropriate for rural arterial roads. - Shifting vehicles closer to the curb may increase conflict with adjacent trees, poles and sidewalks. - May impact pedestrian visibility if landscaped. DRAFT- Medium to high cost. Type of Traffic Calming Calming Pros Cons Measure Measure - Physical narrowing slows 85th percentile speeds up to 10 km/h, however narrowing via simple pavement markings may have minimal effect.3 - May squeeze cyclists if no bicycle lanes provided. Lane Narrowing - May allocate space to other uses (e.g., bicycle lanes). - Pavement markings may be less effective in winter months due to snow/ice cover. - May be implemented quickly if using only pavement markings (i.e., no physical change required). - Reduced separation between oncoming vehicles. - Low to medium cost. - Inappropriate for arterial roads. - May slow traffic due to perception of lane narrowing. Reduction in 85th percentile speed up to 5 km/h.3 - May cause confusion as this measure can be perceived as temporary or as an indication of a construction zone. - Use of Vertical Centreline - Collapsible design of delineators is able to withstand impact with a vehicle. post-mounted delineators to reduce speeds on roadway mid-block segments has not been common. Treatment - Low cost. - May be problematic for maintenance (snow removal, debris accumulation, repeated vehicle impacts). - In rural areas, farm equipment may have difficulty passing if delineators excessively narrow the roadway. - Can reduce collision rates and total personal injury collisions4. Reductions of 25% in the number of collisions per kilometre (collision density) and of 18% in the collision rate (controlled for volume).3 - Can reduce vehicular speeds if there are sufficient critical traffic volumes. Reductions in speeds of between 5 and 12 km/h.3 If traffic volumes are too low, platooning may occur, and speeds may not be reduced6. - Reduction in vehicular capacity because of the removal of motorist travel lane(s). - Can reduce pedestrian crossing distances. - May affect emergency response times due to added congestion. Road Diets - Provides space for widening of sidewalks, adding bicycle lanes and creating friendly street for pedestrians - Most applicable to roads with moderate traffic volumes. and transit users. - Medium to high costs, if physical adjustments are required. - Most appropriate for four-lane collector and arterial roads. - Low to medium costs if implementation requires only adjustments to pavement markings, signs and signal timing plans.
- May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures. - On-street parking must be removed through chicanes and for 5 metres each side. - May be problematic for emergency, maintenance, and transit vehicles. Drainage gutters must be swept - Slows vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the curb extension deflection. Vehicle speed reductions between 6 manually. and 11 km/h.3 - Only appropriate at mid-block locations. Chicanes - May result in traffic volume reductions of up to 22% (two-lane chicanes) or up to 47% (one-lane chicanes).3 - Inappropriate for arterial roads or speeds over 50 km/h or grades over 8% - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower speeds and volumes. - Traffic should be minimum 750 vpd or 100 vph (peak hour), with similar volumes in each direction. - For roads with bicycle routes, traffic volumes should be less than 1000 vpd. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions. - Often found unfavourable amongst residents2. - Medium cost. - May increase potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts or cyclist-vehicle conflicts. - May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures. - Inappropriate for arterial roads or speeds over 50 km/h. Horizontal - Reduces vehicle speeds on the approach to and through these intersections. Reduction in 85th percentile - Generally inappropriate for traffic volumes exceeding 1500 vpd, however may be considered for low volume Deflection speed up to 14 km/h.3 collectors (1500 to 5000 vpd), if used with caution. Traffic Circles / Traffic - May reduce traffic volumes up to 20%.3 - May require on-street parking be removed. Buttons / Mini- - Collision rate reductions of approximately 30% compared to signalized intersections.3 - Cannot be used when any of the intersection approaches are a major collector or arterial. Roundabouts - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower speeds and volumes. - May require increased maintenance if trees/shrubs are contained within the traffic circle and due to increased - Can improve street aesthetics or provide a gateway feature. snow plowing time. - Low to medium cost (traffic circle or traffic button). - May reduce response times of emergency vehicles (increased delay of 1.3 to 10.7 seconds)3. - Can reduce access for large trucks. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions5. - Medium to high cost (mini-roundabout). - Constructing smaller turning radii at intersections can be effective at slowing right-turning vehicles. - Benefit to pedestrians by slightly reducing crossing distances. - May not be possible at some intersections if there are geometric constraints. Curb Radius - Improves visibility of pedestrians. - May be problematic for transit, emergency, and maintenance vehicles, in addition to medium/heavy trucks such Reduction - Can be applied to low volume arterial streets if theDRAFT volume of trucks/buses turning is insignificant. as transports. - Low to medium cost. Type of Traffic Calming Calming Pros Cons Measure Measure - May impact on-street parking. - May be inappropriate for speeds over 55 km/h or grades over 6%. - Slows vehicles in the vicinity of the lateral shift, particularly if opposing traffic is separated by a median. - May require adjustment to drainage features. Lateral Shift - May be used as a landscaping opportunity to improve aesthetics. - May be less effective for speed moderation if opposing traffic volumes are low. - Speed reduction is typically lower than that provided by Chicanes. - Medium cost. - Excessive use of radar speed boards may lead motorists to disregard or ignore the boards over the long term, particularly if placed in suboptimal locations8, or if no perception of enforcement. - May be less effective on multi-lane roads or high volume roads. - Typically applicable to certain types of corridors (e.g., regulated school zones, high-speed signalized intersection locations - Effective at reducing driver speeds9. Reduction in 85th percentile speed between 3 and 14 km/h.3 Speed Display or upstream of deficient horizontal curves), however may be used in residential neighbourhoods where there are safety - Potential reduction in speed-related collisions. Devices (Radar concerns directly related to vehicles travelling through the neighbourhood at excessive speeds (typically 10 to 20% over - Portable units are flexible in being deployed quickly at different locations. Speed Boards) speed limit3). - Low to medium costs. Less expensive than police enforcement. - Average Daily Traffic (ADT) should exceed 500 vpd and devices may not be effective over 10,000 vpd.3 Signage - Safety and effectiveness is questionable at posted speeds over 80 km/h.3 - Modification to speeds is localized. Drivers tend to resume their initial speed 400 metres downstream of the speed display device.13 - Increases awareness of upcoming hazards. - Regular maintenance of sign required. - May reduce 85th percentile speeds by 10 km/h.3 Vehicle Activated Signs - Over-use of treatment may decrease its effectiveness. - May reduce collisions by up to 35%.3 - Introduces additional hazard in clear zone. - Low cost. Traffic Calmed - Advance warning to motorists that they may encounter physical traffic calming devices. - May have minimal impact on driver speeds (depending on the motorist). Neighbourhood Sign - May deter motorists from using the roadway as a short-cut. - May be problematic for transit, emergency, and maintenance vehicles and affect garbage collection routes. - Restricts resident access, resulting in circuitous travel. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions due to circuitous travel. - May result in reduction in 85th percentile speed up to 11 km/h.3 - May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures - May result in reduction in traffic volumes up to 60% (two directions) or 100% (one direction). - Not recommended for local/local intersections. - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower speeds and volumes. Directional Closure - Generally inappropriate for traffic volumes exceeding 1500 vpd, however may be considered for low volume - Improves pedestrian visibility and may reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. collectors (1500 to 5000 vpd), if used with caution. - Effective at controlling non-compliance of one-way road sections. - Not effective on rural cross sections unless posts or bollards are placed to effectively control closure. - Can enhance aesthetics, if landscaped. - May impact drainage. - Potential for non-compliance by motorists during off-peak conditions. - Medium to high cost. - May be problematic for transit, emergency, and maintenance vehicles and affect garbage collection routes. Access - Restricts resident access, resulting in circuitous travel. Restriction - Increases gas consumption and air emissions due to circuitous travel. - May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures - Not recommended for local/local intersections. - Eliminates access to motorists, improving safety. - Generally applicable to residential streets with 20% or more cut-though traffic. Full Closure - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower traffic volumes. - Not effective on rural cross sections unless posts or bollards are placed to effectively control closure. - Can enhance aesthetics, if landscaped. - May impact drainage. - Potential for non-compliance by motorists during off-peak conditions. - May prevent emergency access if the closure is not designed to be accessible to emergency vehicles. - Property may need to be purchased in order to construct turnarounds. - Medium to high cost. - Area-wide traffic volume reduction between 20 and 70%3; reduces short-cutting or through traffic. - Restricts resident access and results in circuitous travel. Diverter - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower traffic volumes. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions due to circuitous travel. - Can enhance aesthetics, if landscaped. DRAFT- May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures. Type of Traffic Calming Calming Pros Cons Measure Measure - Generally inappropriate for traffic volumes exceeding 1500 vpd, however may be considered for low volume collectors (1500 to 5000 vpd), if used with caution. - May be problematic for transit, emergency, and maintenance vehicles and affect garbage collection routes. - May impact drainage. - Not effective on rural cross sections, unless posts or bollards are placed to effectively control diversion. - Potential for non-compliance by motorists. - Low to high costs. - Restricts resident access and results in circuitous travel. - Restrict access to/from side streets, reducing vehicle volumes and improving safety. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions due to circuitous travel. - Islands provide refuge for pedestrians and reduce crossing distances. - May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures. Intersection - Reduction in traffic noise due to lower volumes. - May be problematic for transit, emergency, and maintenance vehicles. Channelization - Can enhance aesthetics, if landscaped. - Not typically applicable to local/local intersections. - Low to medium cost. - Potential for non-compliance by motorists. - May increase vehicle speeds depending on geometry and configuration. - Restricts resident access and results in circuitous travel. - May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures. - Effective at preventing short-cutting and through traffic. - May be problematic for transit, emergency, and maintenance vehicles and affect garbage collection routes. - Reduces traffic volumes by up to 35%3. - May require maintenance if trees/shrubs are contained within the median. Raised Median Through - Improves crossing for pedestrians and cyclists by creating a refuge and requiring uni-directional gaps in traffic to cross. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions due to circuitous travel. Intersection - Can enhance aesthetics, if landscaped. - Not applicable to local streets. - Can reduce speed if combined with narrow lanes. - Potential for non-compliance by motorists if medians are too short. - Traffic noise may be reduced and air quality improved, due to lower traffic volumes. - Can increase vehicle speeds due to reductions in traffic volumes. - Medium to high costs. - Restricts resident access and results in circuitous travel. - Improves safety due to a reduction in conflict points by turning movements. - Increases gas consumption and air emissions due to circuitous travel. - Reduces traffic volumes by up to 35%3. - Not applicable for arterial roads. Right-in/Right-out - Improves crossings for pedestrians and cyclists by creating a refuge. - May result in diversion of traffic to nearby local roads without traffic calming measures. Island - Traffic noise may be reduced and air quality improved, due to lower traffic volumes. - May be problematic for transit, emergency, and maintenance vehicles and affect garbage collection routes. - Low to medium costs. - Potential for non-compliance by motorists. - May increase vehicle speeds, depending on geometry and configuration. - Speed reduction up to 11 km/h (as vehicles approach the intersection).3 - Increased delay if during peak periods. More effective during low volume conditions. Rest-on-Red Signal - Collision reductions up to 45%.3 - Not applicable for posted speeds greater than 50 km/h or for local roads. Phasing - Low cost (reprogramming of signal timing). - Considered an emerging concept. - Reduced speed variance and reduction in mean speed up to 10 km/h.3 - Enforcement may be needed to encourage/promote compliance. - Capacity increase of 5 to 9%.3 - Introduces obstruction in clear zone that may require shielding. - Improves travel time by 5 to 15%, due to more uniform speeds and decreased headways.3 - Speed limit changes should be implemented in response to an incident. If speed limit changes occur too frequently, Variable Speed Limits - Collision reduction of 10 to 30%.3 motorists may not comply. - Can improve safety during adverse weather conditions and congestion. - Medium to high cost. Traffic - Decreased noise, gas consumption and emissions. - Considered an emerging technology. Control - Not specifically considered a traffic calming measure, however is primarily for intersection control. - May increase the potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflict or cyclist-vehicle conflicts. - Reduces vehicle speeds on the approaches to and through these intersections. Typical reduction of speeds in the - Inappropriate for local/local intersections or traffic volumes less than 1500 vpd (i.e. may consider mini-roundabout roundabout to 30 km/h or lower. instead). Modern Roundabouts - Collision rate reductions, particularly injury collision rates. - May require on-street parking to be removed. - Can improve street aesthetics or provide gateway feature. - May require increased maintenance if landscaped and due to increased snow plowing time. - Can be used on higher speed roads and higher volume roads (i.e., collector and arterial). - May reduce response times of emergency vehicles. DRAFT- Often requires property acquisition. - Typically requires additional illumination. Type of Traffic Calming Calming Pros Cons Measure Measure - High cost. - Not specifically considered a traffic calming measure, however is primarily for pedestrian crossing control. - Increased level of pedestrian/cyclist crossing control and visibility, improving safety. - Potential for non-compliance by motorists or pedestrians. Pedestrian Crossovers - Effective in reducing speeds during periods of pedestrian crossing activity. - Operations may not be fully understood by motorists or pedestrians. (PXO) - Low to medium cost. - Minimal, or no, impact on reducing speeds outside of the period of pedestrian crossing activity. - Not applicable for posted speeds over 60 km/h. - May be most applicable to areas with very low posted speeds (10 km/h to 30 km/h). - Requires substantial redesign of road and pedestrian space to create a distinct environment. - May be confusing unless legal provisions define priority movements and appropriate signage are in place. - May require increased maintenance. - May reduce mean and 85th percentile speeds up to 13 km/h.3 - May be problematic for emergency, maintenance and transit vehicles. - May improve safety and up to 45% reduction in fatal collisions. Shared Space Shared Space - Not applicable if over 15000 vpd. More effective at low to moderate traffic volumes and when pedestrian - May improve aesthetics (coloured / textured pavement, landscaping, street furniture). volumes/demand are high. - May increase pedestrian usage by up to 20%.3 - Prohibits on-street parking. - May adversely impact pedestrians with visual and mobility challenges. - Requires enhanced lighting. - High cost. - May slow vehicles and assist in speed transition between different land use zones. Reduction in 85th percentile speed - May not be effective for frequent users of the corridor. up to 10 km/h (up to 15 km/h if followed by other traffic control devices in urban areas).3 - May require increased maintenance. Gateways Gateways - May increase compliance with speed limits. - May introduce hazards into the roadside clear zone, requiring additional protection measures. - Creates easily identifiable transitional zone. - Medium to high costs. - Can enhance aesthetics, if landscaped. - Generally only applicable to Highways and Freeways. Aircraft / Drone Radar - Proportion of excessive speeders (15 km/h or more over the speed limit) is reduced by 6 to 35%.3 - Requires regular presence to be effective. Enforcement - High cost. - Motorists may divert to alternate routes or increase speeds after passing cameras. Fixed Speed - Reduction in average speed between 8 and 14 km/h within enforced area, which is close to the point of installation.3 - Results may be highly localized. Enforcement - Injury crash reductions in the range of 10 to 48% at conspicuous, fixed-camera sites.3 - Possible disfavour from local residents / community. - High costs (capital plus management of penalties). Mobile Speed - Reduction in average speed between 2 and 6 km/h.3 - Possible disfavour from local residents / community. Enforcement - Reduction in speed-related collisions. - High costs (capital plus management of penalties). - Reduction in average speed up to 10 km/h.3 - Possible legal or privacy issues around license plate recognition. - Upwards of a 90% reduction in the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit.3 - Generally only applicable to expressways or freeways (controlled entry/exit points). Section Speed Control Enforcement - Collision reduction between 29% and 47%.3 - High cost (capital and management of penalties). - Fatal and serious injuries reduction up to 51%.3 - Considered an emerging technology. - Red Light Enforcement Program is currently active in York Region. - Complex installation and relatively expensive (approximately $100,000 per red light camera installation)12. - Red light cameras are effective at reducing right angle collisions12. Recent statistics indicate that red light Red Light Cameras - In some instances may be considered to be a violation of privacy. However, attempts are made to reduce the cameras have reduced the number of right angle collisions by more than 70% at intersections equipped with probability of members of the public being captured in photos12. red light cameras in York Region.12 - Notification letters sent to car owner, who may not have been the high-speed driver. - Generally not applicable to zones with posted speed over 50 km/h or to arterial roads. - Reduction in speed up to 8 km/h (1 to 3 km/h most common).3 “Speed Watch” - Possible inaccurate recording of license number. - May be effective at lowering speeds if combined with active enforcement11 Program - Requires police involvement to process license plate data and send letters. - Low to medium cost. - Regular/frequent users of a roadway with “road watch program” signage may ignore the signage over the long-term if enforcement is not actively employed enough to deter unlawful driving behavior. - Requires community commitment to the program. Active and Safe Routes Education - Increases active transportation (pedestrian, cyclist) awareness. DRAFT- Program is directed at the pedestrian/cyclist and therefore there is relatively little traffic calming effect on vehicular to School Program Programs - Low to medium cost. traffic. Type of Traffic Calming Calming Pros Cons Measure Measure - Requires community commitment to the program. - Forces a proportion of motorists to obey speed limits. Pace Car Program - Not applicable to arterial roads. - Low to minimal costs. - Data not available on what proportion of Pace Car Drivers are required to influence road operating speed. - May not be effective unless tied to vigorous enforcement and legislation. - May not be effective at reducing collisions if used in isolation. Targeted Traffic - May be effective at raising awareness and changing attitudes, including those involving speeding issues. - Benefits may not be sustainable beyond campaign period. Education Campaigns - Mass media campaigns may be less effective than targeted communication. - Low to high cost, depending on scope. References: 1. The City of Barrie estimated that the cost of implementing a raised intersection to be $50,000 to $70,000 per intersection, whereas traffic circles and raised median islands were estimated to cost $10,000 to $30,000 each (Staff Report ENG003-11 – Traffic Calming Policy, January 10, 2011). 2. The City of Barrie conducted a pilot traffic calming project in which they found that residents were not in favour of chicanes. From this observation the City concluded that they will not be recommended chicane installations in the future (Staff Report ENG003-11 – Traffic Calming Policy, January 10, 2011). 3. Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming Second Edition (Transportation Association of Canada, February 2018). 4. Stout, T. B., Pawlovich, M., Souleyrette, R. R., & Carriquiry, A. (2006). Safety Impacts of “Road Diets” in Iowa. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 76, 24-27. 5. Urban Traffic Calming and Health Literature Review (Government of Quebec National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, November 2011). 6. Corkle, J., Giese J. L., Marti M. M. (2002). Investigating the Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Strategies on Driver Behavior, Traffic Flow and Speed. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Minnesota Local Road Research Board. 7. Town of Milton Traffic Calming Policy (Town of Milton Engineering Services, March 2011). 8. Veneziano, D., Hayden L., Ye J. (2010). Effective Deployment of Radar Speed Signs. Montana State University, U.S. Department of Transportation. 9. Williamson M. R., Fries R., Zhou H. (2016). Long-Term Effectiveness of Radar Speed Display Signs in a University Environment. Indiana State University, South Illinois University Edwardsville, Auburn University. 10. Road Watch Program Reporting System (2018). York Region.
DRAFT
DRAFT
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited