CITY OF EVANSTON, ILLINOIS

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY

Introduction

There is increasing interest across the country in developing strategies to reduce the speed and amount of traffic in residential neighborhoods. Many traffic engineers are shifting their focus from evaluating such items as whether or not stop signs are appropriate at individual intersections to more comprehensive efforts to determine effective approaches to neighborhood traffic control. The new programs involve much more interaction with residents than the old ways. Modern neighborhood traffic management, called traffic calming in many communities, is more about using traffic control to address quality of life issues than it is about comparing traffic volumes to national standards developed decades ago. This is not to suggest that the engineering aspects of traffic control should be ignored; on the contrary - the measurement of speeds, traffic volumes, and accident rates are essential in helping determine which strategies work and can be applied at similar locations.

The purpose of this document is to describe a process which will:

1. Determine the extent of existing traffic problems in a neighborhood
2. Describe the range of alternatives available to reduce those problems
3. Help residents determine which of those alternatives they would like to have in their neighborhood
4. Help City Council determine the order in which alternatives are funded and installed by developing a priority ranking system to be used when the estimated cost of projects exceeds the approved funding level.

Background

Ask anyone who lives in Evanston what they believe is the worst traffic problem on their street and you will find speeding at the top of most lists. Does this desire to control vehicle speeds address only a perceived problem or is there a measurable benefit to reducing speeds? To answer this important question, the risk of pedestrian fatality was examined for various speeds. Most people would predict that the risk of fatality increases with speed. It does, but the level of increased risk as speeds increase may be underestimated by many people. It is reported that the likelihood of a pedestrian being killed when struck by a vehicle traveling 15 mph is about 3.5%. This increases to 37% at 31 mph and about 83% when the vehicle is traveling 44 mph. Obviously, there is a real benefit to reduced vehicle speeds when these sobering numbers are reviewed. In addition to reducing the risk of injury when an accident occurs, there are other benefits to reducing speeds. The chances of avoiding an accident increase for two primary reasons: (1) the driver’s field of view widens as speeds go down, making it more likely that activity on or near the pavement will be seen, and (2) stopping distances are greatly reduced at slower speeds, making accident avoidance easier if someone or something is in the roadway.

Cut-through traffic on local streets is another problem many Evanston residents place near the top of the list of problems they would like to address. Our City is built on a grid system which provides many parallel routes to the arterial and collector streets which are designated to handle the through traffic. This provision of local street alternatives which are several blocks long and are the same length as parallel segments of the major street system leads to cut-through traffic as motorists seek to save a few minutes (or seconds) per trip. The grid system was popular 150 years ago when the street pattern was laid out, but it is very unlikely that it would be used if Evanston were being designed today. Instead, you would probably see more curved streets and “no outlet” sections which prevent through traffic. Trying to retrofit the modern design elements on an old grid street system poses quite a challenge for us today. There are some ways to address this which will be discussed later in this report.

To help guide us through a process to reduce speeds and cut-through traffic, some basic principles have been adopted. These will help as we work through the process of developing techniques for controlling traffic in neighborhoods.

Guiding Principles

1. Traffic operations and traffic safety are important and should be addressed to enhance the quality of life, the “livability” of the neighborhoods. Perceptions of traffic problems and measurable traffic characteristics are both important and should be considered as solutions are developed.
2. The City will continue to support street classifications which give different weights to the streets which form the roadway system (arterial, collector, and local) and recognizes that not all traffic control measures are appropriate for each type of street. These street classifications are found in the City’s Comprehensive General Plan.
3. Adequate emergency and service access (for the City, as well as other agencies) is essential and must be maintained.
4. The process for each neighborhood should include all who have a stake in how the street system operates (residents, businesses, schools, park users, etc.).
5. The agreed-upon system of prioritization should be followed when projects compete for limited funding.
6. F. Where possible, trials of the proposed changes should be undertaken prior to final approval of the funding, especially in the more costly projects.
7. The traffic control measure(s) selected should not move traffic to other streets.

The Process for Developing a Plan

Each neighborhood will follow a similar process to develop a traffic management plan. 3 However, it is not suggested that each plan be similar because the neighborhood residents will determine which options best fit their problems and what level of inconvenience they will be willing to experience to address the conditions in their neighborhood. A combination of public meetings and postcard surveys has been adopted as the best way to gauge neighborhood interest.

Initial Neighborhood Meeting

The first meeting is used to determine which problems the residents would like to address and to present a list of options which have been approved for consideration. This meeting includes the ward alderman, residents, and City staff, and it sets the stage for the process and allows for open discussion of the various alternatives which are available. It also provides a time to discuss reasonable expectations. For example, if an area includes a school or business, it is unreasonable to expect that all non-residential traffic will be eliminated. There still may be ways to control or organize that traffic, but elimination of the non-residential traffic is not possible.

Collection of Data

After the first meeting, it will be necessary to collect some traffic data, such as speed, volume, and accident history. These items can be used later to make “before-and-after” comparisons to help determine the level of improvement of the various alternatives.

Second Neighborhood Meeting

This meeting is needed to discuss the proposed neighborhood traffic management plan. It is envisioned that this plan would be developed by a core group of residents (who attended the first meeting and volunteered to spend some time to examine the alternatives) with the assistance of City staff. It is possible that the plan could be developed at the first meeting, but in neighborhoods where many options are available, it is unlikely that this can be done.

Postcard Survey

Our experience has been that many people are unable to attend (or do not attend) evening meetings, but are still interested in changes to traffic flow in their neighborhood. For this reason, a postcard survey which presents any proposed changes provides an opportunity for all neighborhood residents to express their views. The results of the survey will be used by the ward alderman to determine if there is sufficient interest to proceed with any changes.

Implementation of the Plan on a Trial Basis

If there is sufficient interest in proceeding with the plan, it has been approved that it be implemented on a trial basis whenever possible. Council approval of the trial is needed prior to implementation. This will be necessary because most plans will include the expenditure of funds and/or ordinance changes. The trial period can 4 vary in length, but a minimum of three months is suggested for any change and it may be beneficial to leave some trials in place for a year.

Evaluation of the Trial/Second Postcard Survey

 Two components make up the evaluation of the trial. First, the “after” portion of the data collection will be completed and compared with the “before” data to determine any measurable changes. Also, a second postcard survey will be completed to determine if the residents perceive the changes as beneficial. This will allow them to express their opinions on whether or not they would like to see the changes made permanent. The ward alderman will be able to use this input to determine if another meeting should be held before the final recommendation is made to Council. Some communities use a specific percentage of residents in the area in favor (60% to 70% is reported), but no specific cut-off is suggested at this time.

Approval of Implementation

If there is a desire to make the changes permanent, the necessary documentation (reports, ordinances, etc.) will be prepared for Council approval. Bids for the final implementation will be solicited for the larger jobs and the smaller ones will simply be approved at this time.

Allowable Traffic Control Measures

There is a wide range of alternatives which are available to control traffic speeds and reduce volumes. The following is a list of measures which are currently approved for use in developing neighborhood traffic management plans. Each of these is discussed in the appendix.

Changes to traffic control:

Turn restrictions (Full-time or peak-hour)

One-way streets - traditional one-way pairs

One-way streets - non-traditional one-way patterns (“mazes”)

Additional signs - stops signs, speed limits

Additional markings - edge lines delineating the parking lane(s)

Parking modifications - adding parking; relocating parking to create a chicane effect

Physical changes to streets:

Traffic circles constructed at intersections within existing curb lines

Midblock islands (similar to circles, except these are not used at existing intersections)

Street narrowings

Cul-de-sacs

Diagonal diverters

Partial intersection closures

Speed humps

Speed bumps (to be used only in alleys)

Speed monitoring options:

Traditional Police enforcement

Mobile radar speed display (speed trailer or speed monitor)

Neighborhood speed watch

Other options:

Education - newspapers, flyers, drivers education classes, banners

Arterial improvement

Traffic Control Measures Not Recommended At This Time

Some measures are not recommended due to potential problems or lack of experience with them. Speed bumps are not recommended for any street, but Council has approved their use in alleys. It is suggested that they be funded through this program, rather than have the residents pay for them.

Another item not recommended for use in Evanston is the type of pavement narrowing that causes both directions of travel to share the same pavement. These are called chokers in some communities. There may be a liability problem with these, because they create a head-on condition.

Rumble strips are low bumps placed on the pavement to create a vibration for the drivers traveling too fast. These are not recommended in Evanston due to the fact that they also cause noise for nearby residents and may prove to be a nuisance. They are probably less of a problem where homes are set back a considerable distance from the street.

Internal Staff Review

A staff team with representatives from Police, Fire, Water and Sewer, Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and Streets and Sanitation will review all neighborhood traffic management plans. This is necessary to ensure that all services can continue to be provided and that emergency response times remain at an acceptable level.

Funding and Budget

 City Council has approved funds each year since the program began in 1997. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (funded by general obligation bonds) has been used to fund the various elements of this program. These funds have been used for cul-de-sacs, two mobile trunk-mounted radar displays, a speed trailer, trial traffic circles, permanent traffic circles, one-way streets (sign change-over and signal modifications), arterial traffic signal timing optimization, traffic counters, a radar gun, signage, other expenses (meeting rooms, film, etc.), alley speed bumps, speed humps, and other traffic control measures.

Conclusion

This document describes the approved method for developing traffic control plans for neighborhoods. It is geared toward using a similar procedure for each neighborhood, but relies heavily on the residents of each area to provide input in deciding what measures are appropriate for the streets in their neighborhood. It encourages us to look at 6 neighborhoods as a whole, rather than examining a request for a specific intersection. This minimizes the chance that traffic problems will be pushed to a nearby street.

This policy was approved by unanimous vote of the Evanston City Council on June 9, 1997. It was modified to include the use of speed humps on April 24, 2000, and the speed hump policy was approved on June 11, 2001 also by unanimous vote.

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY - PDF