COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Department of Public Works

DATE:

March 10, 2003

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 25, 2003

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT:

Installation of Speed Control Devices - Burlingame and Redwood City Areas

Recommendation

1.

Adopt a resolution determining that the existing “test” speed control devices on Hillside Drive in Burlingame Hills, and on Blenheim Avenue in the Fair Oaks area, shall remain in place until either the Director of Public Works or the Captain of the Redwood City office of the California Highway Patrol recommends that they be removed.

2.

Determine if your Board wishes to consider procedures that would govern the installation of speed control devices.

3.

If your Board wishes to consider a procedures governing the installation of speed control devices:

a)

direct the Director of Public Works to send a copy of a draft procedures to the homeowners groups and property owners that have expressed interest in the installation of speed control devices in their areas, as well as to the three advisory councils (Fair Oaks, MidCoast and Pescadero), for their review; and

b)

report back to your Board on the comments received together with a recommendation on implementing procedures on the installation of speed control devices.

Previous Board Action

Authorized the Department of Public Works to:

a)

install speed humps on Hillside Drive and speed dips on Blenheim Avenue;

b)

determine their effectiveness in physically reducing the speed of traffic; and

c)

evaluate if the devices meet the expectations of property owners and residents in reducing the speed of traffic, as compared to the inconveniences that the devices may create.

Key Facts

1.

Data on the speed of vehicles, at or near the location where speed control devices were installed, indicates that there is a slight reduction in the overall speed of traffic in the vicinity of the speed control device.

2.

The results of our survey indicate that the property owners and residents, near where the speed control devices have been installed, believe the devices are worthwhile.

3.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has reviewed the draft procedures and is agreeable to being the “gatekeeper” for requests for speed control devices as the devices are traffic enforcement tools, and traffic enforcement on streets in the unincorporated area is primarily the responsibility of the CHP.

Discussion

Evaluation of “Test” Speed Control Devices

Blenheim Avenue in the North Fair Oaks area and Hillside Drive in the Burlingame Hills area were the roads selected to have “test” speed control devices installed and evaluated, as the residents on these streets had complained about the speed of traffic to the CHP, and the CHP agreed that these streets would be appropriate test sites. Test speed humps were installed on Hillside Drive in July 2002, and the speed dips were installed on Blenheim Avenue in October 2002.

The Department conducted speed surveys on these streets prior to the installation and after the devices were in and traffic became accustomed to the devices being in place.

The comparison of the speed surveys on the two streets indicates that:

1)

the average speed has only slightly decreased (from 32.5 miles per hour (mph) to 30.8 mph on Hillside Drive; and from 22.8 mph to 19.5 mph on Blenheim Avenue);

2)

the devices have less impact on the average speed of vehicles that are traveling at or below the speed limit (25 miles per hour), and

3)

the speed of drivers at higher speeds have been reduced.

4)

speed dips slow drivers down more than speed humps.

We also observed that while the effect of the devices diminish as the distance from the devices increase, the overall average speed is slightly reduced in the general area on either side of the device (i.e. approach speed and speeds away from the devices area less).

Property Owners/Resident Surveys

We also surveyed the residents and owners of the adjacent properties near where the devices were installed to obtain their opinion as to the effectiveness of the devices.

The following is a summary of the survey results which indicate that the property owners/residents in the vicinity of the speed control devices at least perceive that traffic speeds have been reduced and that the devices should remain:

Street Surveyed

Response Rate*

Responding* That Devices Are Effective

Responding* That Devices Should Remain In Place

Responding* That Devices Should Be Removed

Hillside Drive (28 Property Owner Surveys Sent)

60.7%

17

76.5%

13

82.4%

14

17.6%

3

Blenheim Avenue (122 Property Owner and Resident Surveys Sent)

30.3%

37

94.6%

35

97.3%

36

2.7%

1

Note: *Responses expressed as a percent (%) of those responding and in number of responses received

The response rate on the two streets is markedly different. However, Hillside Drive is a single family residential area, and Blenheim Avenue is zoned for multifamily units but has a combination of single family homes and tenant occupied apartments. The lower rate of response on Blenheim Avenue may be attributed to the lower owner occupied property. However, we believe that there is still a sufficient response to conclude that the residents are in favor of leaving the devices in place.

Procedure to Determine if Speed Control Devices Should be Installed.

The Department, with the aid of the CHP, concurrently developed the attached draft procedures that can be used to determine if speed control devices should be installed. We are asking your Board to determine if you wish to consider procedures; and if so, then we are recommending that you direct us to send copies of the procedures to the homeowner associations and property owners that have asked, since your Board authorized the installation of the “test” devices, that speed be controlled on their streets, and to the three advisory councils; and ask for their input on the proposed procedures. Our past experience with traffic circles and chicanes in the Fair Oaks area, and the review of other cities’ standards for installing traffic control devices, indicate that not everyone is in favor of the installation of these devices, and establishing procedures helps everyone understand the conditions that have to be met before speed control devices will be considered or installed.

We anticipate that it will take approximately two months before we would return with a recommendation to your Board as some homeowner associations and advisory councils only meet once a month, and our intent is to provided sufficient time for them to consider the draft and provide their comments.

Vision Alignment

We believe our recommendation is consistent with Shared Vision Commitment of a “responsive, effective and collaborative government,” as the testing and installation of the speed control devices and the development of the draft procedure was a collaborative effort of both the County and the CHP.

Fiscal Impact

We estimate that it cost approximately $20,000 to design, install, evaluate and conduct the property owner surveys associated with the two “test” speed control devices. The cost of the “test” devices and staff time was paid for with Road Funds.

We believe the cost of future speed control devices will be in the range of $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the particular configuration of a street and the time that may be involved in surveying the property owners and responding to questions.

We also believe that if your Board approves of a criteria, that there may initially be a large number of requests for the devices based on past correspondence that we and the CHP has received. We can evaluate limiting the number of speed control devices that will be allowed each year, or set a time each year when requests for speed control devices need to be received by the CHP in order that devices can be prioritized based on the input from the CHP. Your Board may also want to consider our developing an application fee to offset at least the cost of the traffic study necessary to determine if a device is warranted.

Any County costs associated with evaluating or constructing additional speed control devices is proposed to be paid for with Road Funds. There is no impact to the General Fund.

A form of resolution has been approved by County Counsel.

A copy of this report has been sent to the City Council of the City of Burlingame, City of Burlingame Department of Public Works, representatives of the residents on Hillside Drive and Blenheim Avenue, and to the three advisory councils and we have notified them of when this item is tentatively scheduled to be heard by your Board.