Download
1 / 25

Harold Avenue Traffic Calming - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 445 Views
  • Updated On :

Harold Avenue Traffic Calming Prepared for CE 510 Portland State University Fall 2005 Erin Wilson Nazmul Alam Sachin Karmarkar Project Methodology Literature review Site visits Analysis of alternatives Review of County materials Traffic volumes Neighbor inputs Speed study

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Harold Avenue Traffic Calming' - adamdaniel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Harold avenue traffic calming prepared for ce 510 portland state university fall 2005 l.jpg

Harold Avenue Traffic CalmingPrepared for CE 510Portland State UniversityFall 2005

Erin Wilson

Nazmul Alam

Sachin Karmarkar


Project methodology l.jpg
Project Methodology

  • Literature review

  • Site visits

  • Analysis of alternatives

  • Review of County materials

    • Traffic volumes

    • Neighbor inputs

    • Speed study

    • Maintenance reports



Problems l.jpg
Problems

  • Speeding

  • Cut through traffic

  • Perceived risk to pedestrians and bike users


County and neighbor priorities l.jpg
County and Neighbor Priorities

  • Reduce speeds (Number one priority)

  • Reduce cut through traffic

    • High school students

    • Drivers avoiding signal at Oatfield

    • Delivery trucks

  • Improve overall safety for pedestrians and bicyclists



Photos from site visit l.jpg
Photos from Site Visit

Ditch at Harold Avenue, between Raymond and Vineyard

Intersection of Naef and Harold


Photos from site visit9 l.jpg
Photos from Site Visit

Intersection of Concord and Harold

Road condition along Harold Ave


Photos from site visit10 l.jpg
Photos from Site Visit

Harold Ave.

Sidewalk along Harold Ave.


Current conditions l.jpg
Current Conditions

  • Poor condition of roadway

  • Alignment

  • Angle intersection (skew)

  • Poor sight distance

  • Extremely limited pedestrian facilities

  • No bike lanes



Alternatives l.jpg
Alternatives

  • Speed humps

  • Traffic circles

  • Chicanes

  • Restricted turns

  • Medians

  • Road closure


Alternative 1 speed humps l.jpg
Alternative #1: Speed Humps

  • Pros:

  • Primarily used for speed reduction.

  • Can also result in reducing traffic volumes by diverting traffic to nearby streets.

  • Cons:

  • Increase in emergency response time.

  • May divert traffic to other low volume local streets.

  • References:

  • http://www.ite.org/images/calming/tcshs.gif

  • http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2004/20040224/PDF/045.pdf


Alternative 2 traffic circles l.jpg
Alternative #2: Traffic Circles

  • Pros:

  • Traffic Circles can be placed at both four legged and three legged intersections.

  • Used at Neighbored intersections where right angled crashes are occurring.

  • Slows traffic up to 5-8 mph

  • Cons:

  • Can delay emergency vehicle response between one and nine seconds.

  • May cause diversion of traffic to adjacent Neighborhood street.

  • Special consideration should be given when applying adjacent to school zone and park.

    References:

  • http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/page.asp?view=11571

  • http://www.ite.org/traffic/circle.htm


Alternative 3 chicanes l.jpg
Alternative #3: Chicanes

  • Pros:

  • Helps to reduce vehicular speed by creating visual narrowing of street.

  • Forces motorist to negotiate curve by reducing speed.

  • Cons:

  • May increase emergency response time.

  • May affect driveways.

  • May affect drainage and street sweeping.

  • References:

  • http://www.ite.org/traffic/chicane.htm

  • http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2004/20040224/PDF/045.pdf


Alternative 4 restricted turns channelization l.jpg
Alternative #4: Restricted Turns/Channelization

  • Pros:

  • Reduces cut through traffic on residential street.

  • Reduce speed.

  • Control turning traffic in and out of neighborhood.

  • Cons:

  • Increase emergency response time.

  • Increase trip length.

  • May impact accessibility.

  • May get opposition from neighborhood.

  • References:

  • http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2004/20040224/PDF/045.pdf

  • http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?print=1&c=35932&a=62107


Alternative 5 medians l.jpg
Alternative #5: Medians

  • Pros:

  • Makes pedestrian crossing easy.

  • Preferred by emergency response agencies to most other traffic calming measures.

  • Cons:

  • May reduce parking and driveway access.

  • Bicyclist prefer not to have travel way narrowed into path of motor vehicle.

  • References:

  • http://www.ite.org/traffic/narrow.htm


Alternative 6 road closures l.jpg
Alternative #6: Road Closures

  • Pros:

  • Typically applied only after other measures have failed or determined as inappropriate.

  • Reduces cut through traffic.

  • Cons:

  • Redirects traffic to other roads.

  • May affect emergency response time.

  • Affects street connectivity and capacity.

  • References:

  • http://www.ite.org/traffic/closure.htm


Costs l.jpg
Costs

  • Speed humps/bumps – $1500 to $3000/hump

  • Traffic circles – $3,000 to $6,000 according to circle size.

  • Chicanes – $10,000 to $40,000 according to application.

  • Restricted turns – Up to $5000

  • Medians – $3,000 and up

  • Road closures – Up to $5,000

  • References

  • http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmej/9801/rm980102.htm

  • http://www.springsgov.com/units/traffic/TCHandbook.pdf


Recommendations l.jpg
Recommendations

  • Use of speed humps or traffic circles and restricted turning movement will maximize speed reduction

  • Use of speed humps or traffic circles by themselves will result in speed reduction

  • A chicane between Raymond and Vineyard will result in speed reduction along Harold and reduce cut through traffic

  • Additional safety improvements:

    • Provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists

    • Provide pedestrian crosswalks

    • Improve existing condition of road

    • Modify intersections to reduce skew (Harold and Naef)


Slide25 l.jpg

Acknowledgements

Rick Nys, Clackamas County

Chris Monsere, Portland State University

Thank you!


ad