1. Traffic Calming State of the Practice Slide Seminar Prepared by Reid Ewing for Institute of Transportation Engineers with funding from Federal Highway Administration September 1999

2. Introduction Session 1

3. Contents of Traffic Calming State-of-the-Practice 1.Introduction 2.Brief History of Traffic Calming 3.Toolbox of Traffic Calming Measures 4.Engineering and Aesthetic Issues 5. Traffic Calming Impacts 6.Legal Authority and Liability 7.Emergency Response and Other Agency Concerns 8.Warrants, Project Selection Procedures, and Public Involvement 9.Beyond Residential Traffic Calming 10.Traffic Calming in New Developments

4. Seattle Bellevue Portland Eugene Berkeley San Jose San Diego Phoenix Austin Boulder Dayton Howard Co. Montgomery Co. Charlotte Gwinnett Co. Tallahassee Gainesville W. Palm Beach Ft. Lauderdale Sarasota Communities Featured in Report

5. Companion Canadian Guide

6. Elusive Definition of Traffic Calming As defined for the purposes of this seminar, traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut-through volumes in the interest of street safety, livability, and other public purposes.

7. Measures Not Covered in Definition of Traffic Calming All-way stops Roadside environment Speed limits/enforcement Markings to narrow lanes

8. Multiple Purposes of Traffic Calming Neighborhood Livability -- San Jose, CA Crime Prevention -- Dayton, OH Urban Redevelopment -- West Palm Beach, FL And Others

9. Naglee Park Neighborhood (San Jose, CA)

10. Five Oaks Neighborhood (Dayton, OH)

11. Northwood Road (West Palm Beach, FL)

12. Selective History of Traffic Calming International Origins F Dutch Woonerven and Other Experiments F Danish Environmentally Adapted Through- Roads F German Areawide Traffic Calming F British Environmental Traffic Management F Australian Local Area Traffic Management

13. Original Traffic Calming Demonstration (Stevens Neighborhood) Source: Traffic and Transportation Division, “A Study in Traffic Diversion in the Stevens Neighborhood.” City of Seattle, WA, 1974

14. Permanent Installation (Stevens Neighborhood) Source: Traffic and Transportation Division, “A Study in Traffic Diversion in the Stevens Neighborhood.” City of Seattle, WA, 1974

15. Seattle’s First Application of Its Now Favorite Measures

16. Early Accommodation of Emergency Services

17. Start Dates of Other Early U.S. Traffic Calming Initiatives Austin, TX1986 Bellevue, WA1985 Berkeley, CA1975 Boulder, CO1984 Charlotte, NC1978 Eugene, OR1974 Gainesville, FL1984 Montgomery County, MD1978 Portland, OR1984 San Jose, CA1978

18. Overview of Current Practice F Hundreds of Programs, Most Relatively New F Growing Interest Among Transportation Professionals F Controversy in Areas with the Most Ambitious Programs

19. Prevalence of Selected Measures (ITE District 6 Survey) Speed Humps 79 Diverters/Closures 67 Traffic Circles 46 Engineering Measures110 Responses153 Measure Number of Jurisdictions

20. Growing Professional Interest

21. Austin, TXAustin, TX Boulder, COBoulder, CO Ft. Lauderdale, FLFt. Lauderdale, FL Howard County, MDHoward County, MD Gwinnett County, GAGwinnett County, GA Montgomery County, MDMontgomery County, MD Portland, ORPortland, OR San Diego, CASan Diego, CA San Jose, CASan Jose, CA Sarasota, FLSarasota, FL Also Growing Controversy

22. Future of Traffic Calming -- Trends From Simple to Diverse Programs From Volume to Speed Controls From Wrong to Right Spacing of Slow Points From Spot to Areawide Treatments From Retrofits to New Developments

23. From Simple to Diverse Programs

24. Combination of Measures Bellevue Boulder Eugene Montgomery Co. Portland Sarasota Seattle Tallahassee West Palm Beach ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ + +

25. Example -- Speed Table Combined with a Choker

26. From Volume to Speed Controls

27. Speed Controls in a Curvilinear Network Source: Transportation Department, City of Bellevue

28. From Wrong to Right Spacing of Slow Points

29. Midpoint Speed vs. Spacing of Slow Points Source: R. Ewing, Best Development Practices, American Planning Association (in cooperation with the Urban Land Institute), Chicago, 1996, p.64.

30. Spacing Guidelines of Featured Communities Bellevue200-300 ft Berkeley150-400 Boulder150-800 Gwinnett County350-500 Howard County400-600 Montgomery County400-600 Phoenix< 500 Portland300-600

31. From Spot to Areawide Treatments

32. From Retrofits to New Developments

33. Low-Volume Residential Street in New Hierarchy Source: City of Eugene, Eugene Local Street Plan, 1996, p. 71.

34. Traffic Calming Guidelines for Old and New Streets Source: City of Eugene, Eugene Local Street Plan, 1996, p. 71.

35. Other Efforts to Calm Traffic in New Developments Howard CountyNew subdivision standards calm traffic naturally by narrowing streets, adding roundabouts at intersections, and requiring slow points at regular intervals PhoenixSubdivision regulations and design review standards discourage cut-through traffic -- guidance to developers contained in Calming Phoenix Traffic San DiegoDuring development review, refer to Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines prepared by a leading New Urbanist