Consideration of Speed Humps for Shaw Avenue and Springloch Road October 18, 2016

Earlier this year, residents along Shaw Avenue initiated a county study via GCCA which was expanded to

include Springloch Road given that the two roads are connected. Vehicle speed and volume data was

collected in early May at a point along each of these two roads. Study results for Shaw Avenue and

Springloch Road met county criteria of having prevailing speeds (85th percentile speeds) at least 7 miles

per hour above the posted speed limit during a peak hour traffic volume of at least 100 vehicles.

Data from the study as well as the county’s prescribed path forward are summarized below. The

committee’s action list is also provided given feedback that a more holistic approach to pedestrian

safety is needed in parallel. This communique will be posted on GCCA’s website and Facebook site as

well as distributed house to house in an effort to inform all within the neighborhood and an additional

informational meeting will be held prior to collection of petition signatures per county requirements.

Peak Evening Qualifying Shaw Avenue data points were as follows:

Date

Dir.

Start Time

1 15

mph

16 20

mph

21 25

mph

26 30

mph

31 35

mph

36 40

mph

41 45

mph

Total Count

85th Percent

95th Percent

5-10 WB 1700 0 2 11 33 43 11 0 100 34 37

5-11 WB 1700 0 2 13 47 41 4 0 107 33 35

5-12 WB 1700 0 2 15 43 38 9 0 107 34 37

5-10 EB 1700 0 1 9 58 52 22 3 145 35 39

5-11 EB 1700 0 2 15 64 57 6 1 145 33 36

5-12 EB 1700 1 2 17 44 52 12 3 131 34 38

5-10 Total 1700 0 3 20 91 95 33 3 245 35 38

5-11 Total 1700 0 4 28 111 98 10 1 252 33 36

5-12 Total 1700 1 4 32 87 90 21 3 238 34 38

Peak Evening Qualifying Springloch Road data points were as follows:

Date

Dir.

Start Time

1 15

mph

16 20

mph

21 25

mph

26 30

mph

31 35

mph

36 40

mph

41 45

mph

Total Count

85th Percent

95th Percent

5-10 WB 1700 0 8 21 18 24 3 2 76 33 36

5-11 WB 1700 0 2 8 22 32 7 4 75 35 40

5-12 WB 1700 1 2 15 22 25 13 0 79 35 37

5-10 EB 1700 1 0 8 18 8 2 0 37 32 35

5-11 EB 1700 0 1 7 16 9 4 0 37 34 37

5-12 EB 1700 0 0 8 18 6 1 1 34 32 36

5-10 Total 1700 1 8 29 36 32 5 2 113 33 36

5-11 Total 1700 0 3 15 38 41 11 4 112 35 39

5-12 Total 1700 1 2 23 40 31 14 1 113 34 37

A peak morning qualifying hour sample of Shaw traffic is as follows:

Date

Dir.

Start Time

1 15

mph

16 20

mph

21 25

mph

26 30

mph

31 35

mph

36 40

mph

41 45

mph

46 50

mph

Total Count

85th Percent

95th Percent

5-10 WB 0700 0 0 6 26 45 10 1 0 88 35 38

5-11 WB 0700 0 0 3 36 29 8 1 0 77 34 38

5-12 WB 0700 0 0 10 32 42 11 0 0 95 35 37

5-10 EB 0700 0 0 11 29 33 21 4 1 37 32 35

5-11 EB 0700 0 0 12 23 39 12 0 0 87 35 38

5-12 EB 0700 0 1 5 33 37 16 2 0 42 36 39

5-10 Total 0700 0 0 17 55 78 31 5 1 125 34 37

5-11 Total 0700 0 0 15 59 68 20 1 0 164 35 38

5-12 Total 0700 0 1 15 65 79 27 2 0 137 35 38

A peak morning qualifying hour sample of Springloch traffic is as follows:

Date

Dir.

Start Time

1 15

mph

16 20

mph

21 25

mph

26 30

mph

31 35

mph

36 40

mph

41 45

mph

46 50

mph

Total Count

85th Percent

95th Percent

5-10 WB 0700 1 1 15 28 19 8 1 0 73 34 38

5-11 WB 0700 3 2 16 15 23 12 1 0 72 35 39

5-12 WB 0700 0 2 7 28 7 1 0 0 62 35 38

5-10 EB 0700 0 0 5 14 6 4 0 0 29 34 38

5-11 EB 0700 3 1 7 9 4 4 0 0 28 34 38

5-12 EB 0700 0 1 6 11 10 5 1 0 33 36 39

5-10 Total 0700 1 1 20 42 25 12 1 0 102 34 38

5-11 Total 0700 6 3 23 24 27 16 1 0 100 35 39

5-12 Total 0700 0 3 13 39 17 6 1 0 95 35 38

Additional volume and speed data are available for the hours during the three-day survey period that

are not shown above. Volume and speed during the hours just before and after the peak hours show

similar results. Full data is available at http://greaterc.ipower.com/shaw-2 for additional review and

graphical representations of the data will be provided shortly. Notice that the traffic count is much

lower on Springloch than Shaw.

Resident Concurrence Process

Speed humps require the written concurrence of not less than 80% of the residents (one signature per

household), whose livability is directly affected by the traffic conditions along the street being

considered for speed hump installation. This typically means direct road frontage of a residence, but can

also include side and rear yard frontages depending on the specific circumstance.

Speed humps also require the concurrence of not less than 50% of the residents (one signature per

household) on cul-de-sacs or side streets in the neighborhood whose only access to their homes is via

the street being considered for speed humps.

Residents will be reminded that mandatory signage and pavement markings accompany speed humps.

There will be a minimum of two warning signs per hump, one in each direction placed on the right hand

side of the street, at or near the center of the hump, within the County right-of-way.

The signed forms must be returned by the association or committee within 90 days after being issued.

If the specified resident concurrence requirement are not met, the process ends. If the required

percentages of concurrence and the required association endorsement are received, the speed humps

will be scheduled for installation, most likely during the Spring or Summer of next year.

DTPS was required to inform the appropriate Fire and Rescue organization and/or the Division of Transit

Services and solicit their comments. DTPS and Fire and Rescue services has made the decision that the

flat top design will be installed if the residents vote for speed humps

If the direct resident and cul-de-sac resident petitions along Shaw Avenue reach their respective 80%

and 50% approval levels, the proposed locations for the five (5) Shaw Avenue speed humps are shown

within the next two photos:

If the direct resident and cul-de-sac resident petitions along Springloch Road reach their respective 80%

and 50% approval levels, the proposed locations for the three (3) Springloch Road speed humps are

shown in this photo:

Parallel Considerations / Committee Path Forward Actions

1) An additional neighborhood informational meeting will be held during the week of November

14th prior to the petition survey.

2) Recognizing the potential diversion of traffic to Thomas and Eldrid Drive, a speed and traffic

volume study could be requested if sufficient volume diverts if speed humps are installed along

Shaw and/or Springloch.

3) The committee learned that while permanent SAFE SPEEED cameras cannot be installed, GCCA

will request that Shaw and Springloch be added to the roving van program. If the Police

Department determines that these roads quality, they will be added to the some 300 approved

locations where the approximate 30 cameras are installed from time to time. For this program,

vehicles would need to be exceeding the speed limit by more than 12 mph. .

4) GCCA will request periodic police enforcement and Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailers

(SMART) which provide a flashing speed display and request these services as often as they can

be made available.

5) The committee will learn the specifics of county guidelines related to the potential posting of

signs limiting access to the neighborhood by cut through traffic during rush hour periods. The

difficulty with this program is that it applies to everyone – both residents and non-residents.

Thus residents would not be able to legally enter the neighborhood from outside during those

hours

6) The committee will discuss recommending to the county to consider painting edge lines or

installing plastic posts along sections of the road to optically narrow the roadways especially

near blind curves. These posts have been installed on Notley. The County reported at the

September 8 meeting that these mainly slow trucks and have little effect on cars. That is the

experience of those who travel Notley regularly. Additional speed control signage will be

considered for immediate installation beneath existing speed limit signs. These signs are

intended to attract more attention to speed limit signs and to increase awareness of your speed

and in turn reinforce compliance behaviors. A sampling of these signs are shown below.

7) The committee will also learn the specifics of county sidewalk guidelines given an interest during

the the last informational meeting and report back as to their possible implementation as part

of a requested “more holistic approach” to pedestrian safety improvements.