Report to/Rapport au :
Comité des transports
and Council / et au Conseil
15 March 2012 / le 15 mars 2012
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy
City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Planning and
Infrastructure / Urbanisme et Infrastructure
Contact Person / Personne ressource : Vivi Chi, Manager/Gestionnaire, Transportation
Planning/Planification des transports, Planning and Growth
Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613)
580-2424 x21877, vivi.chi@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
MISE À JOUR DE L'INFORMATION
CONCERNANT LA PRIORITÉ DES PROJETS DE GESTION DE LA CIRCULATION LOCALE |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That Transportation Committee recommend that Council:
1.
Receive this
Area Traffic Management Project Priority Information Update, and
2.
Remove the
hold that was placed on outstanding localized Area Traffic Management Study
requests.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que
le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil de :
1.
Recevoir cette mise à jour de l’information concernant la
priorité des projets de gestion de la circulation locale;
2.
Supprime la suspension dont faisaient l’objet les
demandes ayant trait aux études localisées de gestion de la circulation locale
en cours.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In October 2011, Council approved a motion placing a hold on all outstanding area traffic management (ATM) study requests and requesting that staff report back to the Transportation Committee and Council with a priority list of backlogged existing ATM projects. In addition, as part of the 2012 Budget approval process, Council approved $2.5 million in Capital funding for the ATM program.
This funding provides a unique opportunity to implement solutions to the most serious issues studied thus far, and at the same time, substantially enhances the potential of new solutions from new studies proceeding to implementation much more quickly than has been possible in the past.
This report recommends allocating $2 million of the $2.5 million directly to implementing priority projects from the current backlog of previously approved measures with the remaining $500,000 retained for future project implementation. The list of measures proposed for implementation was developed utilizing the processes described in the City’s Area Traffic Management Guidelines, which is based around the principle of prioritizing problems and solutions according to the severity of the concern.
This report also recommends removal of the hold and allowing localized outstanding studies and new studies to be undertaken based on the priority ranking process as described in the ATM Guidelines and as staff resources permit.
RÉSUMÉ
En octobre 2011, le Conseil a approuvé une motion qui mettait en suspens
toutes les demandes relatives aux études de gestion de la circulation locale (GCL)
en cours et qui demandait au personnel de présenter ses conclusions au Comité
des transports et au Conseil, au moyen d’une mise à jour relative à la priorité
des projets de GCL. De plus, dans le cadre du processus d’approbation du budget
de 2011, le Conseil a approuvé une mise de fonds de 2,5 M$ pour le programme de
GCL.
Une mise de fonds de 2,5 M$ offre une occasion unique de mettre en œuvre
des solutions aux problèmes les plus sérieux étudiés jusqu’à présent et, en
même temps, elle permet d’améliorer considérablement la possibilité de
nouvelles solutions, les nouvelles études étant mises en œuvre beaucoup plus
rapidement que par le passé.
2 M$ des 2,5 M$ seront affectés directement à la mise en œuvre de mesures
prioritaires provenant du lot actuel de mesures déjà approuvées, tandis que les
500 K$ restants seront retenus pour des considérations futures liées à la mise
en œuvre. La liste des mesures proposées pour la mise en œuvre a été établie en
ayant recours aux processus décrits dans les Lignes directrices sur la gestion
de la circulation locale de la Ville, qui se fondent sur le principe de
priorisation des problèmes et des solutions selon la sévérité de la difficulté.
La suppression de la suspension actuelle des études en cours n’est
recommandée que pour les études localisées, les études étant amorcées lorsque
les ressources en personnel le permettent, selon le processus de priorité de
rang, tel qu’il est décrit dans les Lignes directrices sur la GCL.
BACKGROUND
On 26 October 2011, Council approved the following motion:
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that Council refer the NTI Implementation Plan back to staff for
review as follows:
- That all outstanding Area
Traffic Management (ATM) Study requests be placed “on hold”
until such time as Council makes a decision on Area Traffic Management;
- That the Studies currently underway be
completed and that the existing ATM projects be re-examined against any
known changes in traffic patterns;
- That these projects be prioritized, in consultation with Ward Councillors,
with value for money and safety improvement impact as the evaluation criteria;
and
- That staff report back to the Transportation Committee and Council with an
ATM Project Priority Information Update by Q1 of 2012.
In addition, as part of the 2012 Budget approval process, Council provided $2.5 million in Capital spending authority for the Neighbourhood Traffic Improvement (NTI) plan which, based on the motion as listed above, is intended primarily for the implementation of Area Traffic Management (ATM) measures recommended through completed ATM studies.
With Council’s 2004 approval of the ATM Guidelines, the City enacted a process for considering community traffic calming/traffic management concerns around the principle of prioritizing problems and solutions in a logical order corresponding to the severity of the concern. This new process was intended to ensure that available resources within this program would be focused on solving the most significant issues city-wide.
The ATM program, however, inherited a substantial backlog of pre-amalgamation study recommendations that at the time required close to $8 million in implementation funding. A number of these study recommendations remain outstanding today as the available funding for the ATM program has been substantially less than that required to address both this backlog as well as recommendations from new studies that have come forward. Managing this backlog and community expectations has been a significant issue for the ATM program. Lack of funding results in substantial delays (often years) before implementation occurs – which raises questions about solutions meeting evolving community needs or expectations. Timely implementation of solutions is important for everyone involved.
As well, given that the majority of pre-amalgamation study recommendations were from community studies in and around the City’s central area, a perception persists that the ATM program remains unfairly focused on serving the needs of central area communities without providing balanced services across the entire city.
DISCUSSION
In preparing this project priority information report, and through recent consultations with a number of Ward Councillors, a significant effort has gone into ensuring resources are being allocated in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
The $2.5 million in ATM capital funding included in the 2012 budget provides a unique opportunity to implement solutions to the most serious issues studied thus far, and at the same time, substantially enhances the potential of solutions from new studies proceeding to implementation much more quickly than has been possible in the past.
Prioritization
Process Focused on City’s Most Serious Problems
With approval of the 2004 ATM Guidelines, the City, for the first time, was able to consider both the backlog of previously approved ATM study recommendations inherited from before amalgamation and new study recommendations on an equal footing, irrespective of the rigour utilized when recommendations were initially approved. The process for prioritizing the implementation of both new and backlogged recommendations ensures resources are focused on the most significant issues. The process used is described further in Document 1. It considers factors such as inappropriate driver behaviour, vehicle speeds and volumes, through traffic volumes, collisions, and implementation costs.
Prioritization
Ensures Priority Recommendations Move Forward
Even with limited funding for implementing ATM
measures, many of the recommendations of recently initiated studies have
already proceeded to implementation, and a number of those that have not are
recommended for implementation with the funding made available in 2012. Document 2 provides a summary of recent
studies and the implementation status of their recommendations. Of the 17 studies completed since 2001, 11 have had all ATM recommended measures
implemented.
Value
for Money and Safety Improvement
The ATM Guidelines process is the most effective means of determining implementation priorities, especially given Council’s recent direction to obtain value for money and deploy funding where the safety improvement impact is high. Prioritizing requests based on problem severity ensures implementation efforts are focused around implementing high impact solutions.
Efficiency
Considerations
Approved measures that can be coordinated with currently planned roadway reconstruction projects will be implemented through that opportunity. Therefore, these measures have been excluded from potential funding considerations in this priority update.
ATM studies, in some cases, have included recommendations of non-ATM types of measures such as new sidewalks, traffic control signal modifications, or even widening or narrowing of entire streets. Such measures, although beneficial from a community liveability point of view, are often very expensive to implement and considered beyond the level of affordability of the ATM program. Such measures are best dealt with through other programs such as the new sidewalk program, or the new traffic signal program, or at the time these roads come up for full reconstruction. These types of recommended measures have also been excluded from potential funding considerations in this priority update.
Allocation
of Current Funding
The full $2.5 million approved in the 2012 budget will be allocated to implementing approved measures and associated detailed design. This means that no new studies will be undertaken except for those studies of a localized nature that can be undertaken by in-house staff. New, comprehensive, community-wide studies requiring the retention of external expertise (and funding) will no longer be undertaken during the remainder of this term of Council (to end of 2014).
The initial $2 million will be directed towards measures from the current backlog. The remaining $500,000 will be retained to permit implementation considerations from new localized studies that are expected to come forward throughout the remainder of this term of Council.
Document 3 contains the list of prioritized measures to be implemented. These measures came from the approved recommendations of 17 studies as listed in Document 4.
Moving
Forward Through Addressing the Backlog
The immediate allocating of $2 million toward the implementation of highest priority measures, in combination with the removal of some of the lower ranking measures or out-dated measures on the backlog list that come as a result of recent consultations with individual Ward Councillors, significantly reduces the longstanding implementation backlog. This represents a major enhancement for the ATM program, and the City’s ability to respond much more quickly to community needs. It also greatly enhances the potential for priority recommendations from new studies proceeding to implementation within a reasonable timeframe. The measures intended for immediate implementation, cover those with priority ranking points ranging from a high of 102 points to a low of 62 points. Almost all of the remaining measures on the implementation backlog will have 61 priority points or less (out of a maximum potential of 145 points).
Document 5 summarizes the residual list of remaining outstanding measures following the initial $2 million implementation undertaking. Of note, while some of the higher ranking of these may become priorities during the later rounds of implementation, for many of these, especially those with relatively few priority ranking points, the only opportunity for these to be implemented may be when future roadway reconstruction occurs.
New ATM Study Considerations
Through recent consultations with Councillors, a number of the more dated and/or lower priority ATM study requests that were on the list previously have been removed. In a number of such instances, staff and/or the Ward Councillor have agreed to consider other potential means of responding to the concerns that were raised. For lower ranking study requests, where opportunities for initiating these is considered to be relatively low, there may be opportunities through ‘quick fix’ types of considerations (e.g., targeted enforcement, or use of speed display boards), operational or safety reviews (e.g., where significant safety issues may warrant further consideration or actions through other programs). Staff will respond back to the request initiators, ensuring they are aware of the actions taken and of other potential opportunities for their concerns to being addressed.
A list of both studies that are currently underway and of study requests is included as Document 6. The list consists of four studies that are currently underway, 41 outstanding study requests that can potentially be undertaken as localized studies, five requests that are expected to warrant being undertaken as comprehensive (area wide) studies, and three new requests that have come forward since a hold was placed on study requests.
Council’s Motion from 26 October 2011 included direction that all outstanding ATM study requests be placed “on hold” until such time as Council makes a decision on Area Traffic Management. In light of the actions described in this report being expected to greatly enhancing the potential for priority recommendations from new studies to proceed to implementation within a reasonable timeframe, it is recommended that the current hold be removed on localized study requests. The hold on comprehensive studies should remain through to the end of the current term of Council or until such time that funding is available. With removal of the hold on localized studies, staff will continue to consider initiating new studies as in-house resources permit, based on the priority ranking process as described in the ATM Guidelines.
The number of new studies that can be initiated in a given year can vary depending on the complexity of individual studies, the extent of staff resources required to coordinate implementation activities, and the volume of other city activities or studies that require area traffic management staff input. For 2012, four studies are already underway and significant implementation coordination activities will take place to address the $2 million in spending. In general, approximately five to eight new ATM localized studies can be initiated annually.
The Area Traffic Management Unit currently has a vacant Senior Project Engineer position and the City was unsuccessful in an earlier attempt to find a suitable candidate to fill it. This past spring, staff placed a temporary hold on the hiring process when the proposed new Strategic Initiative on Neighbourhood Traffic Improvements was initially announced. This Strategic Initiative since has been referred back to staff to re-prioritize existing ATM projects. With ATM funding having been approved in the 2012 budget, with significant implementation activities planned over the coming years, and with public expectations for new studies to be initiated, the hiring process for this existing position will immediately be re-initiated.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
Area Traffic Management requests/concerns from all areas of the city, including rural areas, are dealt with in the same manner.
Information packages were sent to all Ward Councillors in advance of this report being finalized. The package provided an overview of the approach utilized in determining priorities, along with ward specific details where councillor input was required. All Councillors were offered an opportunity to meet with staff.
At the time of finalizing this report staff had meet with 10 individual Ward Councillors. In most cases the Councillors involved were those with outstanding measures from previously approved studies already in the implementation backlog.
The main discussion points are summarized as follows:
· Councillors, and the public, have been frustrated with delays in implementing approved measures, and in initiating new study requests;
· Councillors appreciate the need for the prioritization process utilized for implementation and the consideration of new studies (some did have suggestions on how the prioritization process could be improved, or how the focus of the ATM program could be broadened);
· For ensuring continued support for this program, it is important that the ATM program be perceived as serving the needs of all communities, as opposed to a select number;
· It is often unclear to Councillors, and the public, when ATM studies are appropriate, as opposed to other types of reviews (e.g., operational or safety reviews, etc.);
· Several Councillors concurred with the removal of dated, lower ranking recommendations from previous studies, as well as dated, lower ranking study requests from within their ward.
Public Works Department
The
Public Works Department is supportive of the report recommendations and will
work with the Planning and Growth Management Department to implement the
recommendations subject to approval by Council. Any non-ATM type
of measures that are the responsibility of Public Works to review will be
conducted using existing policies and guidelines through the various traffic
programs the Department manages.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLORS
Not applicable - City-wide report.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no legal impediments to receiving the report and to implementing the recommendation in the report.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risk implications.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$2.5 million is available within the 2012 Area Traffic Management program budget.
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT
Staff will ensure
that any applicable accessibility standards are adhered to during the execution
of the projects and initiatives identified in this report. One of the primary objectives of the ATM
program is to ensure that the effect of motorized vehicles on neighbourhoods is minimized, to improve safety and the
quality of life of other street users and those affected by the use of the
street.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Ensuring the effect of motorized vehicles on neighbourhoods is minimized encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation, including walking, cycling and public transit.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct technical implications associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
The
2011-2014 City Strategic Plan included Strategic Initiative TM3-13 –
Neighbourhood Traffic Improvements, which was intended as a program that
provides funding allocation equally by Ward to address community needs relating
to improving traffic operations. Council Motion 23/5, and the funding allocation
approved as part of the 2012 Capital Budget, as noted in the BACKGROUND section
of this report, superseded Strategic Initiative TM3-13. As a result, the
2011-2014 City Strategic Priorities will be amended to reflect this change.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Prioritization Process Utilized for Implementation of ATM Measures
Document 2 Status of Recent Area Traffic Management Studies
Document 3 ATM Measures Implementation List
Document 4 Approved ATM Studies with Outstanding Recommendations
Document 5 Outstanding Area Traffic Management Measures
Document 6 Area Traffic Management On-going Studies and Study Requests
DISPOSITION
Staff from the Area Traffic Management Unit will carry out the work items as identified in this report.
|
Indicator |
Point Score / Maximum Score |
Local Roads |
Collector Roads |
Major Collector Roads |
|
Inappropriate driver behaviour |
/10 |
Up
to 10 points if there is a history of complaints that can be verified through
enforcement efforts |
||
|
Generators
of vulnerable street users |
/10 |
5
points per generator of vulnerable street users (schools, parks and community
centres) on or in close proximity to street |
||
|
Pedestrian
facilities |
/10 (5 for local) |
5
points if no sidewalk exists |
10
points if no sidewalk exists; 5 points if one sidewalk exists |
|
|
Abutting
land use |
/10 |
Up
to 10 points based percentage of street frontage that is primarily
residential or pedestrian-oriented retail (e.g. “main street”) |
||
|
15%
of vehicles traveling at or over 50 km/h or speed limit |
/15 |
1
point for every km/h over 50 km/h (or over posted speed limit if it is
greater than 50 km/h) |
||
|
5%
of vehicles traveling at or over 60 km/h (or if speed limit is more than 50
km/h, 15% travelling 10 km/h or more the speed limit) |
/15 |
1
point for every km/h over 60 km/h (or 1 point for every km/h greater than 10
km/h over the posted speed limit if it is greater than 50 km/h) |
||
|
Motorized
traffic volumes |
/15 |
1
point for every 100 vehicles per day over 1000 or
1
point for every 10 vehicles per hour over 120 (in the busiest hour) |
1
point for every 250 vehicles per day over 2500 or
1
point for every 25 vehicles per hour over 300 (in the busiest hour) |
1
point for every 350 vehicles per day over 5000 or
1
point for every 35 vehicles per hour over 600 (in the busiest hour) |
|
Through
traffic volumes |
/15 |
1 point for every 2% in the
proportion of through traffic over 20% (minimum 20 through vehicles per hour) |
||
|
Collisions |
/30 |
Ratio of collision rate to average
collision rate (for streets or intersections, whichever is greatest). Less than 0.75 0 points 0.75 to 1.25 5 points 1.25 to 2.0 15 points 2.0 to 3.0 25 points Greater than 3.0 30
points If
a vulnerable street user is involved in a collision within the most recent
three-year period, the maximum of 30 points are given. |
||
|
Cost |
/25 |
Up to 25 points assigned to reflect
relative costs (with lowest cost groups of measures receiving maximum points)
using the following formula:
|
||
|
Total Score |
|
|||
|
Study |
Study Completion Date |
Ward |
Implementation Status1 |
|
Johnwoods Street and Hartin Street Traffic Calming Plan |
2001 |
6 |
Completed |
|
Albion Road Corridor Study |
2002 |
10 |
Completed |
|
Beaver
Ridge/Leaver/Trillium Area Traffic Management Study |
2002 |
9 |
Completed2 |
|
Billings Avenue Traffic Study |
2002 |
18 |
Completed |
|
Booth Street Corridor Study |
2004 |
14 |
15 of 20 recommendations completed |
|
Glebe Traffic Management Implementation Study |
2004 |
17 |
23 of 35 recommendations completed |
|
Perth Street
Revitalization Village of Richmond: Traffic Assessment |
2004 |
21 |
Completed |
|
Delmar/Featherston/Ryder Area Traffic Management Study |
2008 |
18 |
Completed |
|
Michele Heights Area Traffic Management Study |
2008 |
7 |
Completed |
|
Quigley Hill Road Area Traffic Management Study |
2008 |
19 |
Completed |
|
Abbott Street East Area Traffic Management Study |
2009 |
6 |
Completed |
|
Carleton Heights Area Traffic Management Study |
2009 |
16 |
Completed2 |
|
Pleasant Park Area Traffic Management Study |
2009 |
18 |
Completed |
|
Alta Vista Drive Area Traffic Management Study |
2010 |
18 |
All recommendations included on draft 2012
implementation list |
|
Dalhousie South
Community Area Traffic Management Study |
2011 |
14, 17 |
Signage changes pending, other measures did not
prioritize for implementation |
|
McKellar Park/Highland
Park/Westboro Area Traffic Management Study |
2012 |
15 |
3 of 6 recommendations included on the draft 2012
implementation list. |
|
Old Ottawa South Area Traffic Management Study |
2012 |
17 |
All recommendations included on draft 2012
implementation list |
|
1. Of the 17 studies completed since 2001, 11 have had all recommended
measures completed. |
|||
|
2. All ATM measures have been
implemented. Sidewalks however, have
not been completed. |
|||
|
Study |
Date |
Ward |
|
Sandy Hill Traffic Calming Plan |
1995 |
12 |
|
Somerset Heights Transportation and Parking
Study |
1996 |
14 |
|
New Edinburgh Traffic Calming Study |
1996 |
13 |
|
Centretown Traffic Calming Plan and Kent Street
Traffic Calming Concept Plan |
1997 |
14 |
|
Parkdale Area Transportation Study |
1997 |
15 |
|
Island Park, Kirkwood, and Churchill Area
Transportation Assessment and Traffic Calming Plan |
1998 |
15 |
|
Barrhaven Traffic Study |
2000 |
3 |
|
Main Street Transportation and Streetscaping Study |
2000 |
17 |
|
Woodroffe Avenue Transportation Study |
2000 |
7 |
|
Beaver Ridge/Leaver/Trillum
Area Traffic Management Study |
2002 |
9 |
|
Booth Street Corridor Study |
2004 |
14 |
|
Glebe Traffic Management Implementation
Study |
2004 |
17 |
|
Dalhousie South Community Area Traffic
Management Study |
2007 |
14, 17 |
|
Carleton Heights Area Traffic Management
Study |
2009 |
16 |
|
Alta Vista Drive Area Traffic Management
Study |
2010 |
18 |
|
McKellar Park/Highland Park/Westboro Area Traffic Management Study |
2012 |
15 |
|
Old Ottawa South Area Traffic Management
Plan |
2012 |
17 |