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

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.

2

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

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. Adequate emergency and service access (for the City, as well as other

agencies) is essential and must be maintained.

D. The process for each neighborhood should include all who have a stake in

how the street system operates (residents, businesses, schools, park users,

etc.).

E. The agreed-upon system of prioritization should be followed when projects

compete for limited funding.

F. Where possible, trials of the proposed changes should be undertaken prior

to final approval of the funding, especially in the more costly projects.

G. 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 - edgelines 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 curblines

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)

5

Speed monitoring options:

Traditional Police enforcement

Mobile radar speed display (speed trailer or speed monitor)

Neighborhood speed watch

Other options:

Education - newspapers, flyers, drivers ed 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.

7

APPENDIX

ALLOWABLE TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES

8

ALLOWABLE TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES

This section describes the various traffic control measures which form the menu from

which the final recommendations for each neighborhood are to be selected. Many of these

are items which are in place in Evanston and have proven to be effective measures to

control a specific problem or condition. Some are new to Evanston, but are in use in other

communities and are effective in addressing their traffic issues. They are divided into

subsections and follow the order listed in the text of this report. Not all measures are

appropriate in all situations and most are acceptable for use only on local streets. Also,

they each have different impacts and different levels of inconvenience on the

neighborhoods.

Changes to Traffic Control

Turn Restrictions

This measure involves restricting turning movements into or out of neighborhood

streets, primarily at intersections with major streets. This is in use at several

locations in Evanston and has been shown to be effective in reducing cut-through

traffic, especially traffic desiring to avoid traffic signals. While most of our

restrictions are in effect 24 hours/day, it is possible to have peak-hour restrictions as

well. These require an ordinance and are relatively inexpensive to install. However,

regular Police enforcement is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of these

restrictions.

Traditional One-way Streets

One-way streets have been used in Evanston for many years to organize and

control the flow of traffic in neighborhoods. The common application is the one-way

pair (two parallel streets with each carrying traffic in only one direction), but

sometimes a single street is designated one-way. Many people believe these are

safer in neighborhoods because the traffic only comes from one direction and there

are fewer conflicts for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. The reduced conflict

tends to increase speeds, so there is a trade-off. One-way streets are also used

when both sides of the street are needed to satisfy the neighborhood parking

demand, but the street width is insufficient to handle traffic in both directions. Oneway

streets are relatively self-enforcing, but sometimes it is necessary to provide

Police enforcement to ensure compliance. These can be relatively inexpensive to

install, but do incur significant cost if modifications must be made to traffic signals to

accommodate the new traffic patterns.

Non-traditional One-way Streets

Non-traditional one-way streets involve designating a traffic flow pattern which is

intended to make it more difficult for vehicles to travel through a neighborhood.

Sometimes this is called a “maze” approach, because the one-way pattern leads

people in directions they did not intend to go. This is in use on Harvard Terrace

9

(which is one-way west from Barton to Asbury and one-way east from Barton to

Ridge) and has been shown to be very effective in reducing speed and volume of

traffic. It is, however, inconvenient for the residents, because the same access

restrictions apply to them as well as to those trying to cut through the area. Another

impact is the difficulty in giving directions for deliveries or even for visitors, since

there is no direct access from either Ridge or Asbury to Harvard Terrace.

Additional Signs

Placing additional signs, such as stop signs or speed limit signs, has been a fairly

common traffic control measure in Evanston. It has been relatively successful at

some locations, but ineffective at others. Additional signing will continue to be

necessary to control traffic in Evanston, but the proposed policy encourages us to

look at neighborhoods as a whole, rather than to continue to respond to individual

requests for four-way stops at isolated intersections.

Additional markings

We use white edgelines to mark the parking lanes on some major streets to

discourage motorists from using the curb lane for passing on the right. This has

been successful and it may be beneficial to try this on local streets. The purpose

would be different, however, in that the lines would be used to try to narrow the

street visually. The same pavement width would obviously still be available, but the

lines would make the street appear narrower and drivers have been shown to

reduce speeds when this occurs. This technique has not been used in Evanston,

and it should be done on a trial basis before recommending its use throughout the

City. This would allow us to see if speeds are actually reduced.

Parking modifications

Adding parking where it is currently prohibited is used in some communities as a

traffic calming measure because this creates “side friction” for passing traffic and

results in reduced speeds. It has limited application in Evanston because our need

for parking has resulted in spaces being added at just about every location possible.

However, we have tried relocating the parking from one side of the street to the

other to force traffic to drive around parked cars, creating a chicane effect. This

was done on Colfax and Lincoln between Ridge and Sherman. It is inexpensive

and self-enforcing, but can only be used on fairly narrow streets with one-sided

parking.

Physical Changes to Streets

Traffic Circles

Traffic circles are islands which are constructed in the middle of intersections, but

without any street widening or changes to the curb radius. They are designed to be

both physical obstructions and visual obstructions. They force traffic to alter the

straight-line path being followed, which results in a speed reduction without the

need for any Police enforcement. Also, they break up the look of the long “straight

back to www.radarspeedsigns.com