HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0604 CC REG ITEM 10EITEM 10• E-,
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA REPORT City C it Meeting
C=TY OF MOORPARKf 199,E
0
ACTION:_ �.
TO: The Honorable City Council
FRONT: Kenneth Gilbert, Director of Public W
DATE: May 23, 1997 (Meeting of 6 -4 -97)
SUBJECT: Consider Directing Staff to Discontinue Efforts Necessary
to Establish a Speed Hump Program
This presents a draft Speed Hump program which has been developed
with the review and input of the City Council Transportation and
Streets Committee [formerly Councilmembers Hunter, Wozniak and
Brown; currently Councilmembers Rodgers - Teasley and Evans.]
BACKGRO, D
1. In 1994, the City Council responded to requests received from
residents of certain neighborhoods, that the City install Speed
Humps on certain streets by directing staff to develop a draft
program. The purpose of that draft program was to define the
policies, procedures, criteria (warrants), design standards
required to establish such a program, and to define development
/ implementation costs, construction costs and administration
costs.
2. That draft program was developed by staff and has been
discussed and studied by the City Council and the City Council
Transportation and Streets Committee on several occasions.
3. In September of 1996, the City Council considered a report
(attached as Exhibit 1) describing the draft program and
program costs. At that time, staff recommended that the City
not pursue the establishment of a Speed Hump Program due to the
considerable costs in staff and consultant fees required to
develop, implement, and manage this program.
4. On October 16, 1996, the City Council referred this matter to
the City Council Transportation and Street Committee [currently
Councilmembers Rodgers- Teasley and Evans].
spdhep2
VOQ4Q,
Speed Humps
June 4, 1997
Page 2
DISCUSSION
A. Speed Hump: Description
As you may recall, unlike the "speed bumps" one may find in a
shopping center parking lot, a Speed Hump is a "raised" portion
of the road ( 2" - 3" high) which is twelve feet (12' ) wide.
The design is meant to accommodate vehicular speeds up to
twenty ( 20 ) to twenty -five ( 25 ) mile per hour. Speed Humps are
normally installed in sets (depending on the location) and are
accompanied by appropriate signing and markings.
B. Program
The draft program is described and defined in the September
1996 staff report attached as Exhibit 1.
C. Conclusions
spdhiAP2
The conclusions set forth in the September 1996 staff report
are restated as follows:
"The installation of a Speed Hump is far different from the
installation of most typical traffic control measures. Such
an act comes only as a part of a rather complicated and
expensive program. The implementation and administration of
such a program requires the commitment of a considerable
amount of resources. Of course, the cost of such a program
includes the design, construction and inspection of the
installation of sets of Speed Humps. But more importantly
program costs also include considerable administrative
costs. If this program is adopted and implemented, it is
anticipated that the City will receive numerous requests for
the installation of Speed Humps. It is possible that only
a few of these requests would meet the minimum standards and
would receive a favorable recommendation from the City
Engineer for the installation of Speed Humps. However, the
review, evaluation and processing of all such requests
(including the many which would not meet the minimum
standards) would require the expenditure of a considerable
amount of staff and consultant engineering time.
It is the recommendation of staff that a Speed Hump program
not be adopted by the City. This recommendation is based on
the concerns regarding the level of resources required as
well as the concerns expressed [herein]. [See Section C of
the report attached as Exhibit I]."
00040ZI
Speed Humps
June 4, 1997
Page 3
D. Committee Review
The former Transportation and Streets Committee participated in
the review and development of the draft program. More
recently, the Committee reviewed the program and discussed the
feasibility of implementation as directed by the City Council.
After due discussion and consideration, the current Committee
concurred with the recommendation of staff and recommended that
the City Council. not pursue the further development and /or
implementation of a Speed Hump Program.
Staff and the Transportation and
the City Council direct staff to
establish a Speed Hump program.
spdhmp2
Streets Committee recommend that
discontinue efforts necessary to
000404
a
EXHIBIT i
AGENDA REPORT -..
C = TY C F MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth Gilbert, Director of Public Works
DATE: September 10, 1996 (Meeting of 9- 18 -96)
SUBJECT: Consider the Possible Establishment of a Speed Hump
Program
This presents a draft Speed Hump program which has been developed
with the review and input of the City Council Transportation and
Streets Committee (formerly Councilmembers Hunter and Wozniak;
currently Councilmembers Hunter and Brown.}
I &el ' • 1,
In response to citizen interest, the City Council Transportation
and Streets Committee has been looking into the pros and cons of
the City establishing its own Speed Hump Program. As you may know,
unlike the "speed bumps" one may find in a shopping center parking
lot, a Speed Hump is a "raised" portion of the road (2" - 3" high)
which is twelve feet (121) wide. The design is meant to
accommodate vehicular speeds up to twenty (20) to twenty -five (25)
mile per hour. Speed Humps are normally installed in sets
(depending on the location) and are accompanied by appropriate
signing and markings.
A. Status
Speed Humps are not approved by either Caltrans or the National
Highway Traffic Safety Board as an official traffic control
device. The design immunities which normally accompany
approved traffic control devices do not accompany Speed Humps.
Therefore, those agencies which have used Speed Humps have done
so only after the development and implementation of a set of
very strict guidelines, based upon "state of the art" standards
approved by the City Engineer. Locally, Speed Humps have been
used by the Cities of Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo and
Santa Paula. The attached guidelines and design standards are
based on some of these programs.
spftpl
000405
Speed Humps
September 1996
Page 2
FIM
M
There are basically two types of
addressed through the installation
briefly described as follows:
EXROIT I
problems which may be
of Speed Humps. They
1. Shortcuts -- Problems caused by drivers using a residential
street for a shortcut. The warrants for the installation of
Speed Humps to address this type of problem normally require
traffic volumes exceeding one thousand (1,000), to fifteen
hundred (1,500) vehicles per day. It should be noted that
if the City's Speed Hump program were designed to merely
address this type of problem, that it is likely that any
residential street in the City would qualify.
2. Speed -- Excessive speed in residential neighborhoods. The
warrants for this type of a program do not stress traffic
volume, but do require average vehicle speeds to exceed a
certain threshold.
As stated below, the Transportation and Streets Committee did
not make a recommendation regarding the approval and adoption
of this program. However, the Committee did conclude, that if
such a program is adopted, that it should be designed to
address the problem of excessive speed in residential
neighborhoods.
Speed Humps are seen by many to be a panacea for speeding
problems. Although they have been used with some success by
some agencies, Speed Humps are not without problems. A few of
those problems are summarized as follows:
spdhapl
1. Emergency Vehicles: Speed Humps are generally not met with
much favor by emergency response vehicles (fire, police,
ambulance, etc.). As one might expect, they are seen as
possible a source for delayed response times.
2. Non - Approved Traffic Control Device: As mentioned above,
Speed Humps are not an approve traffic control device. They
may be seen as still in the experimental stage. They should
only be installed in accordance with very strict guidelines.
3. Liability: As with any "non- standard" program, there is a
potential for an increase in the level of risk or liability
which an agency assumes when it adopts, implements, and
administers a Speed Hump program.
000400'
EXHIBIT I
Speed Humps
September 1996
Page 3
4. Control: The primary concern associated with Speed Humps is
that a Speed Hump could cause, or be alleged to have caused,
a vehicle to go out of control.
5. Grades: In order to reduce possible vehicle control
problems, Speed Humps are generally not installed on a
street segment having a slope greater than five percent
(5 %).
6. Installation Requirements: It is usually not appropriate to
install only one Speed Hump. When they are installed,
usually an entire street segment is designated for such
installation and several Speed Humps are installed at an
appropriate spacing. Installation requires more than just
the "hump." Paint markings and warning signs are also
required.
7. Construction Techniques: The specifications for the
construction of the "hump" are very specific and must be
followed exactly. Construction methods and techniques are
very crucial to a proper outcome. The specifications must
be very detailed. The nature of this work requires that
there be a full -time inspector on the job during every
aspect of construction. This requirement results in
inspection costs considerably higher than normal.
8. Construction Cost: Installation costs are considerable (see
Section pertaining to Fiscal Impact).
9. Maintenance Cost: The striping and legends required to be
installed at and near Speed Humps must be re- painted each
year.
10. Program Administration Cost: Program costs must also
include the cost of managing and administering the program.
Such cost include: processing application, review and
verifying petitions, evaluating candidate streets,
developing recommendations, preparing reports, seeking City
Council determination, design preparation, bid
administration, award of contract, etc.
11. Nuisance Factor: The novelty of a Speed Hump wears off very
quickly. Local residents are left the one most affected.
Subsequent to installation, Speed Humps have been viewed by
some neighborhoods as an inconvenience. Some agencies have
been asked to remove the Speed Humps.
spdhipi
000407
EXHIBIT 1
Speed Humps
September 1996
Page 4
12. Effectiveness: As stated earlier, Speed Humps have been
seen as effective in reducing speeds. However, their
effectiveness has also been questioned. In some_cases,
drivers have been known to drive faster to achieve, or
attempt to achieve, a smoother ride.
13. Utilities: Of course a Speed Hump cannot be installed over
a manhole cover. In addition, utility cuts through a Speed
Hump cause unique re- pavement problems.
14. Motorcycles: Speed Humps are not very Motorcycle - friendly.
Care most be taken to minimize motorcycle related problems.
15. Low Clearance Vehicles: Speed Humps are also not very
compatible with vehicles which have a short clearance.
Damage to the street and to the vehicle can occur.
D. Proaram_Descrioti
As stated above, in order to adequately discuss the merits
and /or problems associated with the establishment of a Speed
Hump program, it was necessary for staff to develop a draft
program which illustrates the various elements which must be
included in any such program. That draft program is attached
as Exhibit 'A.' A summary description of that program is as
follows:
1. Guidelines: Some general information pertaining to the
installation of Speed Humps.
2. Warrants: A list of minimum criteria which must be met in
order for Speed Humps to be installed.
3. Procedures: The procedures to be followed by staff in
processing such Applications.
4. Design Standards: The design standards to be followed in
constructing one or a series of Speed Humps.
E. Program Cost Analysis
The cost for administering a Speed Hump program is, of course,
unknown. In the chart below, staff has attempted to determine
the estimated annual cost (in time and dollars) of such a
program. These costs not only include installation
spdhipl
000408
EXHIBIT 1
Speed Humps
September 1996
Page 5
costs, they also include the cost of administering the program
(processing of applications, etc.). For each task listed, a
range of costs has been provided based on an estimated range of
applications from one to ten.
Ref.
1.
Distribute application Packets
C -2
2.
Answer questions and assist applicants in the
C -2
preparation of their applications and /or in the
covpiling of signatures on petitions
3.
Initial screening:
C -3
- verify validity of Petition
- confin Warrant Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are vet.
4.
Warrants 1, 2, 3 or 4 Not Het:
C -4
- Send Notice of Rejection
5.
Warrants 1, 2, 3 and 4 Met
- send notice
C -5a
- retain Traffic Engineer
C -5b
- transvit to Traffic Engineer
C -5b
- traffic engineering analysis
C -5c
- Engineer's Report
C -5d
- Staff Report
C -5e
- TSC Prelivinary Review
C -5e
6.
Warrants 5 or 6 Not Met
- Letter Notice of Infonal Meeting
C -6b
- Infonal Meeting with TSC
C -6c
- Notice of Rejection
C -6c
7.
Warrants 5 & 6 Met
- Infonal Meeting with TSC
C -7b
- Public Hearing Notice
C -7d
- Staff Report
C -7e
- City Council Action
C -7f
8.
Select Design Consultant
- --
9.
Prepare Design
- --
10.
Prepare Bid Package
- --
11.
Advertise, receive bids, present bids, award
- --
contract
12.
Construct project
- --
13.
Evaluate project perfonance subsequent to
- --
construction
spdhwpl
Estinted Hours Est. — Cost (Si
Nin. Kin. Max.
0.2 1
0.5 10
2 20
1 10
.3 4
2 30
1 10
2 20
2 20
4 40
2 20
1 10
2 20
10 100
2 20
1 10
10 15
8 15
6 10
5 20
1 4
1,000 10,000
2,000 8,000
5,000 20,000
000405
Speed Humps
September 1996
Page 6
Task
14. Prepare report on perforsance
Total Hours
Rate ($)
Sub -Total ($)
Total Cost ($)
F. Committee Review
Estiaated Hours
Ref. Kin. Max.
- -- 3 5
66 414
50.00 50.00
3,300 20,700
EXHIBIT I
Est. Cost ($1
ins fix_
8,000 38,000
11,300 58,700
The Transportation and Streets Committee participated in the
review and development of the attached draft program. At the
end of that process the Committee requested that this matter be
forwarded to the City Council for discussion and consideration.
The Committee made no recommendation.
ITPI -��-1 •
The attached draft program is just that -- a draft. If the
City Council wishes to proceed with the implementation of a
Speed Hump program it is recommended that the following steps
be taken.
1. Approve City Engineering services in the amount of $1,000 to
review, modify and finalize the Speed Hump program (It is
anticipated that some staff assistance will be necessary).
2. Review and adopt the final program when completed.
3. Approve an appropriation of funds and an amendment to the
budget at a level required to fully fund the additional
costs related to the administration of the program,
including additional staff time, additional consultant time
and estimated construction costs.
The installation of a Speed Hump is far different from the
installation of most typical traffic control measures. Such an
act comes only as a part of a rather complicated and expensive
spdhipi
000410
EXHIBIT I
Speed Humps
September 1996
Page 7
program. The implementation and administration of such a
program requires the commitment of a considerable amount of
resources. Of course, the cost of such a program includes the
design, construction and inspection of the installation of sets
of Speed Humps. But more importantly program costs also
include considerable administrative costs. If this program is
adopted and implemented, it is anticipated that the City will
receive numerous requests for the installation of Speed Humps.
It is possible that only a few of these requests would meet the
minimum standards and would receive a favorable recommendation
from the City Engineer for the installation of Speed Humps.
However, the review, evaluation and processing of all of the
other requests would require the expenditure of a considerable
amount of staff and consultant engineering time.
It is the recommendation of staff that a Speed Hump program not
be adopted by the City. This recommendation is based on the
concerns regarding the level of resources required as well as
the concerns expressed in Section C above.
Staff recommends that the City Council not adopt a Speed Hump
program.
spdtupl
000411
Exhibit 'A'
DRAFT
City of Moorpark
SPEED HUMP PROGRAM
A. Guidelines
EXHIBIT I
The following general guidelines shall govern the installation
of Speed Humps.
1. Speed Humps will only be installed on streets which meet the
minimum Warrants and which meet the Design Standards set
forth in Section D below.
2. Speed Humps are experimental roadway features. As such,
additions, alterations or removals of any or all Speed Humps
installed, may occur at any time.
3. Upon the installation of Speed Humps on any street, the
Public Works Department will notify the Ventura County Fire
Department, the Moorpark Police Department and the local
ambulance service of said installations (where they may
incur delay),
B. Warrants
spdhnpl
The installation of Speed Humps on public roads will be
considered only if all of the following conditions are met over
the entire proposed street segment as determined by the City's
Traffic Engineer:
1. The road must be either a residential road or a local road
meeting the following definitions:
a) a residential road is defined as a road having
residential structures with direct access to the road;
b) a local road is defined as a road that is intended to
primarily provide access to adjacent residential areas,
neighborhoods or structures;
c) structures, as used in the above definitions, shall
include separate dwelling houses, churches, apartments
buildings or multiple dwelling houses.
2. The road must have a width of at least 35 feet.
3. The road must have no more than 2 traffic lanes.
4. Any portion of the road shall not have any grades in excess
of 5 %.
5. The average traffic volume must exceed 750 vehicles in a 24
hour period.
000414
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit 'A'
Page 2
6. More than 50% of the surveyed vehicles must exceed a speed
of 30 MPH.
C. Procedures
Applications for the installation of Speed Humps shall be
received, evaluated and acted upon as follows:
1. City Initiated Study: The City Council may direct that one
or more streets be evaluated for the purpose of determining
whether or not said street or streets meet the minimum
requirements for the installation of Speed Humps. In such
event, said streets shall be evaluated as prescribed below
(commencing with Section C -3) and a report shall be
presented to the City Council..
2. Citizen Requests: Requests for the installation of Speed
Humps on any given street shall be made in accordance with
the following requirements:
a. All requests shall be made on an Application to be
provided by the City.
b. To be deemed complete, an Application shall include a
petition containing the signatures of the owner or
resident of at least sixty percent (60 %) of the
properties fronting the affected street segment.
c. A separate petition shall be circulated for each street
included in the Application.
d. Completed petitions shall be delivered to: City of
Moorpark, Department of Public Works, 799 Moorpark
Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
3. Initial Screening: Upon receipt of an Application for the
installation of Speed Humps, the Public Works Department
shall do the following:
spdhapl
• Verify that the application includes a valid petition,
• Confirm that the following Warrants are met:
11: Subject street(s) are residential or local
roads.
#2: Road width is at least 35 feet.
#3: Number of traffic lanes does not exceed two
(2) traffic lanes.
#4: Street grade does not exceed 5 %.
000413
Exhibit 'A'
Page 3
spdbpl
EXMBIT I'
4. Warrants 1, 2, 3 & 4 Are Not Met: In the event it is
determined that the petition is invalid and /or one or more
of Warrants 11 2, 3 or 4 can not be met; the Public Works
Department shall notify the applicant that the Application
has been denied. [Note: Notices pertaining to City - Council
initiated studies shall state that the minimum Warrants were
not met.] Said notice shall state the reason for the
denial. A copy of said notice shall be provided to the City
Council. Upon request, the matter may be scheduled for
review by the City Council Transportation and Streets
Committee (TSC) as described in Section C -6b.
5. Warrants 1, 2, 3 & 4 Are Met:
a. Notice: In the event it is determined that the petition
is valid and that Warrants 1, 2, 3 and 4 are met, the
Public Works Department shall notify the applicant that
his /her Application has been forwarded to the Traffic
Engineer for evaluation. Said notice shall state the
approximate date when the application will be considered
by the TSC and shall also state that the applicant will
be advised in writing of the exact date and time the
Application will be considered by the TSC.
b. Transmittal to Traffic Engineer: All Applications which
meet the requirements of Warrants 1, 2, 3 and 4, shall be
forwarded to a Traffic Engineer for evaluation and
recommendation. Said transmittal shall include the
findings of the Director of Public Works yielding a
determination that Warrants 1, 2, 3 & 4 are met. The
City Traffic Engineer or a Contract Traffic Engineer may
be retained to perform a study to evaluate pending
Applications.
c• The Traffic Engineer shall
review each pending Application, perform field traffic
counts and speed surveys, and compile all traffic volume
and vehicle speed data required to determine if Warrants
Number 5 and 6 are met. The Traffic Engineer shall also
perform a site investigation of the street segment for
each pending Application to determine if the geometric
design for the street segment in question meets the
minimum requirements set forth in the Design Standards
for the installation of Speed Humps.
000414
Exhibit 'A'
Page 4
spdhipl
EXHIBIT 1
d. Engineer's Report: Subsequent to conducting said studies
and compiling such information, the Traffic Engineer
shall evaluate said data and prepare and submit a report
to the Public Works Department. Said report shall
contain the following information:
• a description of the street segment being studied;
• a statement of findings and determinations regarding
whether or not Warrant Nos. 5 and 6 were met;
• an analysis of the roadway geometrics and a statement
indicating if the subject street segment is or is not
compatible with the Design Standards set forth in
Section D; and,
• any other data or information relevant to the
installation of Speed Humps within the limits of the
area being studied;
• a recommendation regarding whether or not Speed Humps
should be installed;
• if recommended, a general description of the location,
spacing and number of Speed Humps required; and,
• if applicable, a statement regarding the relative
priority of the area studied compared to other areas
being considered for like treatment.
e. Staff Retort to TSC: The Engineer's Report shall be
forwarded to the TSC for consideration. The Engineer's
Report shall be accompanied by a staff report prepared by
the Director of Public Works. Said staff report shall
include the following information:
• a description of the street segment studied by the
Traffic Engineer, including a description of all of
the adjacent properties affected by the proposed
installation of Speed Humps (hereinafter "Study area";
and,
• a summary of the Traffic Engineer's Report;
000415
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit 'A'
Page 5
SP&41
6. Warrants 5 or 6 Are Not Met:
a. Preliminary Review: As stated in Section C -5e, the
Traffic Engineer's Report shall be forwarded to the TSC
for preliminary review.
b. Informal Meeting: Subsequent to TSC review of the
Engineer's Report and cover staff report, an informal
meeting shall be scheduled before the TSC. A letter
shall be mailed to the applicant, the petitioners and all
of the property owners and residents within the Study
Area, advising said parties of said meeting. The letter
notification shall include the following information:
• a brief description of the Study Area;
• a brief summary of the Traffic Engineer's Report;
• a brief statement indicating that street segment in
question does not meet all of the Warrants for the
installation of Speed Humps and that the installation
of same is not recommended;
• notice that the matter will be discussed at the next
meeting of the City Council Transportation and Streets
Committee (TSC); and,
• an invitation to all interested parties to attend said
TSC meeting to discuss the application, and the
findings and recommendations contained in the
Engineer's Report.
c. Denial of Application: Subsequent to the above described
informal meeting before the TSC, and absent any
additional findings indicating that the minimum Warrants
have or can be met, the Public Works Department shall
notify the applicant that the Application has been
denied. Said notice shall state the reason for the
denial. A copy of said notice shall be provided to the
City Council.
7. Warrants 5 and 6 Are Met:
a. Preliminary Review: As stated in Section C -5e, the
Traffic Engineer's Report shall be forwarded to the TSC
for preliminary review. Any recommendations of the TSC
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
b. Informal Meeting with TSC: At the discretion of the TSC,
an informal discussion meeting may be scheduled between
the applicant and the TSC. In such case, notice of such
an informal discussion meeting shall be mailed to the
applicant and others in the manner described in Section
C -6b. Any recommendations of the TSC shall be forwarded
to the City Council.
000416
Exhibit 'A'
Page 6
spdhipi
EXHIBIT 1
c. Scheduled Public Hearing: Subsequent to TSC Preliminary
Review, and any informal discussion meetings held before
the TSC, a public hearing on the matter shall be
scheduled before the City Council.
d. Public Hearing Notices: Pubic Hearing Notices shall be
published posted and mailed in accordance with the
following requirements:
1) Distribution -- Said Notice shall be:
• mailed to all signers of the petition;
• mailed to all property owners and residents within
the Study Area;
• hand delivered to all addresses within the Study
Area;
• posted along any such street, at all intersecting
streets, and along all significant diversion
streets;
• published in a local newspaper consistent with the
policies and procedures for providing notice of
public hearings; and,
• mailed to the following agencies:
* Fire Department;
* Moorpark Police Department;
* Local Ambulance Service;
* City Street Sweeping contractor(s);
* City Transit Coordinator; and,
* City Franchise Refuse collectors.
Note: Notices to designated agencies shall
include a request that any comments regarding
the proposed installation of Speed Humps
within the specified Study Area shall be
provided to the City within twenty (20) days.
2) Content: Said Notices shall include the following
information:
• the date, time and location of the public hearing;
• a description of the Study Area;
• a summary of the Traffic Engineer's findings and
recommendations regarding the installation of
Speed Humps.
e. Staff Report to the City Council: Prior to the scheduled
public hearing, the Director of Public works shall
prepare and submit to the City Council a staff report
summarizing the Engineer's Report. Said staff report
shall include the following information:
• a description of the Study Area;
• a summary of the Traffic Engineer's Report;
00041`i
EXHIBIT I '
Exhibit 'A'
Page 7
• a summary of comments received and /or other findings
generated as the result of the posting and publishing
of Public Hearing Notices;
• a summary of comments received (if any) from any
affected agencies;
• a summary of any recommendations of the TSC;_
• a preliminary cost estimate for the design and
installation of Speed Humps and related traffic
striping and signing; and,
• a priority ranking of the subject Study Area compared
to other Study Areas being considered.
f. City Council Action: Subsequent to the review of the
staff report, the recommendations of the TSC and the
receipt of public testimony, the City Council will take
action. Proposed Speed Hump projects may be denied,
approved for future funding or approved and funded for
construction. Speed Hump projects which are approved for
future funding shall be included in the list of capital
improvement projects to be considered during the next
capital improvement budget approval cycle. Speed Hump
projects which are approved for construction shall be
accompanied by any required amendment to the fund
appropriations and the current year capital improvement
program budget.
g. Inulementation: Upon approval by the City Council of any
Speed Hump construction project, the Director of Public
Works shall proceed with the preparation of the project
design. Upon completion of the design, bids will be
solicited and a contract will be awarded for the
construction of one or more Speed Hump construction
projects.
SP(241
1. Construction Details
a) Twelve feet [ 12' ] by two and %" (±%") [ 2 %"
(nominal size) asphalt Speed Humps shall be used.
b) Using two templates, the asphalt shall be hand laid in
two lifts and hot rolled over a tack coat.
c) Speed Humps should be installed across the entire roadway
to the lip of the gutter with the last one foot (11)
flush with the pavement to minimize gutter running and to
preserve gutter flows.
000418
Exhibit 'A'
Page 8
spftpl
EXHIBIT i
d) Posts should be installed at the sidewalk where rolled
gutters and sidewalks are located to minimize gutter
running.
2. Warnings Signs
a) A thirty inch by thirty inch ( 30" x 30") warning sign
stating "Speed Bumps" with five inch (511) high series E
letters shall be installed prior to the first encounter
with a Speed Hump.
b) For the first month after the installation of a series of
Speed Humps, a temporary orange flag should be placed on
the street side of each sign to add an "animated impact"
to the signs.
c) Also during the first month after installation, 15 MPH
yellow advisory warning signs should be installed below
the "Speed Bumps" sign to advise motorists of the
"comfortable recommended speed" for critical vehicles.
d) Signs should be installed at all major street approaches
to the controlled street. In order to minimize "sign
pollution" the number of signs should be kept to the
minimum number necessary to adequately provide the
advance warning necessary,.
3. Stencils /Legends
a) Eight feet (81) high "BUMP" legends should be painted
approximately fifty feet ( 50' ) to one hundred feet (100' )
in advance of each Speed Hump.
b) In order to increase the visual "impact" and improve the
drivers' awareness of the Speed Humps, one foot (1' ) wide
longitudinal ladder markings should be painted on each
Speed Hump at six feet (61) intervals on center.
4. Positioning
a) Speed Humps shall be placed from fifty feet (501) to two
hundred feet (2001) away from intersections, stop signs
or tight turns, for the following reasons:
1) To prevent motorists from approaching them at high
speed;
2) To enable motorcyclists to traverse them relatively
perpendicularly and in a vertical position;
3) To allow for sufficient reaction time.
000415
Exhibit 'A'
Page 9
SPCOMPI
EXfMjT 1
b) Speed Humps should be spaced from one hundred fifty feet
(1501) to four hundred feet (4001) apart to adequately
manage speeds along the street. [250' to 300' feet long
intervals are ideal].
c) At least one Speed Hump should be placed in each block.
d) The final positioning of each Speed Hump should take into
consideration certain matters listed below, which should
be field verified prior to installation.
1) The location of each Speed Hump should be:
• near street lights to illuminate them at night;
• downstream of storm drains;
• at a property line when possible;
• five feet (51) to ten feet (101) away from
driveways;
2) Speed Humps should not be located:
• over manholes or near hydrants;
• in proximity to a vertical curves or grades which
obscure advance visibility;
• on a sharp horizontal curves which would obscure
visibility or cause stability problems for
motorcycles or bicycles.
000440
City
C3 Initiated C2 9- SPEED U-'MP PROGTIA-V -% --/ Initial Studv pplicatio
Screening .APPIICA ION PROCESSING
4 6b 6b 6b
172,3 or 4 6c Informal public Letter to
Staff Not Reject Letter Meeting Applicant
In t LJ
5
1,2 ,3 & 4
Are Mer
Initial
Advisory
Letter
Completed
PIP
pha
Met With pu
4 T C
5b
5b Sc 5d 5e 6a 7a
Select Engineering Engineer's Staff Preliminary
Traffic Review by
Engineer Review Report Report TSC
7
Denied
7
Design &
onstruct
City City
Council Council
%%.- Conside-
7e
taff Report
5 or 6
Are Not
Met
Staff
' 5 and 6
Are Met
T
7
7f 7c f
7d '
Public Public
Approval ' Comment Hearing 6b
Notice Letter to
Applicant
' 7b
Informal
L Meeting Public Input .. J
with TSC
y