Directed staff to revise the previously adopted Procedures to: include additional disclosures and notifications; insure the privately financed speed control devices meet the same criteria as publicly financed speed control devices and are not prioritized ahead of public financed speed control devices; and provide for implementing speed control devices that may be warranted to control excessive speeds on roads where a petition from the adjacent property owners has not been received. | |
History | |
The original Procedures were adopted by your Board to provide an additional traffic enforcement tool to encourage motorists to travel at or below the prima facie speed limit in residential areas. | |
The first installation of speed humps/dips was completed in 2004. Staff identified several areas in the Procedures where clarification was needed based on our experience with the initial process and feedback from residents that were involved in the initial process. | |
Your Board subsequently considered and approved a request from property owners on Sharon Road in West Menlo Park to be allowed to privately finance the installation of speed humps on their street. Your Board also directed staff to draft revisions to the Procedures to include the handling of requests for speed control devices from law enforcement agencies, public notification processes and the prioritization of requests. | |
Discussion | |
The proposed Program incorporates the original Procedures and the following revisions: | |
Revisions to the Qualifying Speed Criteria | |
We are proposing to change the qualifying criteria from 20% of all traffic traveling at least 5 miles per hour (mph) over the posted speed limit for speed humps, or 10 mph over the posted speed limit for speed dips to: | |
1. |
minimum 85th percentile speed of 32 mph for speed humps and 36 mph for speed dips; and |
2. |
approval by California Highway Patrol for speed humps or dips. |
The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85% of all traffic is traveling, and is the standard measurement used in establishing speed limits. The 32 mph 85th percentile speed is a typical value used by other municipalities in considering the installation of speed control devices, and is approximately equivalent to the criteria in the previous Procedures. An 85th percentile speed of 36 mph has been determined to be approximately equivalent to the criteria for speed dips in the previous Procedures. | |
Supplemental Information to be Used to Prioritize Speed Control Requests | |
We are also proposing Supplemental Qualifying Criteria consistent with those in use by other municipalities to enable staff to prioritize the large number of requests that we are currently receiving. This criteria includes: | |
a) |
minimum volume of 500 vehicles per day on the residential street; |
b) |
street located within 1,000 foot walking distance of a school, senior citizen facility, facility for the disabled, park, community center or other site with significant pedestrian activity; and |
c) |
unusual accident history. |
We have received over thirty (30) requests for speed control devices and the funding proposed to be available will not allow all requested devices to be constructed in a given year. | |
Changes in Notification | |
We have expanded the notification requirements to insure that all property owners on a street are made aware of any request for, or the proposed installation of speed control devices on their street. We have also incorporated the use of standard formatted petitions that include the notification information that your Board directed be included when you approved the private financing of speed control devices on Sharon Road. | |
Private Financing of Speed Control Devices | |
We have added a section on “Neighborhood Funded Speed Control Devices” which provides that devices proposed to be financed with private funds must meet all the requirements of publicly funded speed control devices including approval by your Board, and that privately financed speed control devices will not be prioritized over speed control devices proposed to be constructed using public funds. | |
Speed Control Devices not Petitioned for by the Public | |
We have added a section that provides that the Redwood City or San Francisco Area Commanders of the California Highway Patrol, or the San Mateo County Sheriff may also initiate requests for Residential Speed Control Devices. We believe that this addresses Supervisor Tissier’s request that a mechanism be in place where speed control devices can be considered for high speed areas or other areas where a traffic enforcement agency believes that a speed control device can reduce the potential for speed related accidents or aid in the enforcement of the speed limit and where no petition has been submitted by the adjacent property owners. | |
A resolution has been approved as to form by County Counsel. | |
A copy of our staff report and the draft procedures has been sent to the Fair Oaks Community Council, the MidCoast Community Council and the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council and to the Homeowners Associations that were previously sent the original Procedures. We will report any comments that we receive. | |
Other Coordinated Efforts | |
Staff is also working with representatives of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Sheriff’s Office to identify other methods of improving driver behavior on County streets. We anticipate returning to your Board in the near future with additional program recommendations. | |
Fiscal Impact | |
We estimate that the cost of the Residential Speed Control Device Program will remain at approximately $50,000 per year. We are also recommending that the administrative fee of $400 per device that was previously approved by your Board remain in effect. | |
| |
The County costs associated with evaluating or constructing speed control devices is proposed to be paid for with Road Funds. There is no impact to the General Fund. | |
