REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION REPORTpittmeadows.ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?... · Somerset Drive, can also be driven by the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan which recommended

PITT MEADOWS

REPORT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION

DATE: May 1, 2015 FILE: 5460-06/Park Rd

and Somerset Dr.FROM: Operations and Development Services

SUBJECT: Park Road and Somerset Drive — Park Road Survey Results

SUGGESTED FOLLOW-UP ACTION: THAT Council:

A. Receive the report dated May 1, 2015 from the Operations and Development ServicesDepartment for information; OR

B. Other.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION

REPORT/DOCUMENT: Attached Available N/A j

PURPOSE: To bring forward information report to Council summarizing results of the Park Road andSomerset Drive Survey and Open House and seek direction from Council on possible next steps.

BACKGROUND: In November 2014, staff was contacted to review the situation for a residence on ParkRoad at the intersection of Somerset Drive. The property owner requested that egress from theproperty be improved and that traffic speed on Park Road be reviewed. Staff met with the propertyowner, consulted with the City’s Safer City Committee, reviewed speed and traffic volume data on ParkRoad and considered options for correcting the egress problem. The results from that review werereported out to Council as requested on February 24, 2015 (see Attachment A). In the report, Staff maderecommendations that improvements to egress from the subject property be completed and that trafficspeed in the area should continue to be monitored, but no further measures were technically warrantedat this time.

At the meeting of February 24, Council moved to refer the issue of traffic calming and pedestrian safetyraised by residents in the area to the Active Transportation Committee and to a public consultationprocess to gather input from the greater neighborhood on pedestrian safety and traffic speeds.

ANALYSIS: Staff referred this concern to the Active Transportation Committee. The ActiveTransportation Committee met twice, March 9 and 16, to discuss the individual needs of the residentand broader community consultation with respect to traffic calming and pedestrian safety in the area.(see Attachment B). The preferred consultation method identified by the Active TransportationCommittee included a letter sent home to all students at Edith McDermott School and to propertiessurrounding the subject intersection inviting them to participate in the survey.

The survey which contained nine questions was e-mailed to all parents with Children at EdithMcDermott School as well as to approximately 100 households in the neighborhood. Attachment C

#126872v1- 75 -

PlU MEADOWS

identifies all the properties that were incited to participate in the survey. The survey asked thefollowing questions:

Qi — What is the postal code at your primary residence? (15 postal codes were identified in thesurvey area).Q2 — Do you feel the curb extensions installed at the intersection of Park Road and SomersetDrive have increased pdestrian safety or decreased pedestrian safety or not changedpedestrian safety?Q3 — If the curb extensions at this location were removed, do you feel that pedestrian safetywould be increased or decreased or not changed?Q4 — Do you feel there are other pedestrian safety concerns at this intersection, yes or no?Q5 — Are you concerned about vehicle speed on Park Road between Lougheed Highway andBonson Road, yes or no?Q6 — Do you feel that traffic calming devices such as speed humps or speed tables should beconsidered on Park Road between Lougheed Highway and Bonson Road, yes or no?Q7 —There are side effects to installing speed humps or speed tables, such as noise whenvehicles cross them, or slower emergency vehicle response times. Do you feel that these effectsare an acceptable trade-off to solving the speeding issue in the area, yes or no or not applicable?Q8 — Do you have other comments regarding speed reduction on Park Road between LougheedHighway and Bonson Road?Q9 — How did you hear about this survey, e-mail from Edith McDermott School or letter fromthe City?

The City received a total of 67 survey responses. A summary of the survey results is provided below anda copy of the full survey results is provided in Attachment D.

Summary of Survey Results

Qi & Q9: According to the results, 62% of respondents lived in the immediate neighborhood and 38%of respondents were completed by residents outside of the listed postal codes (these respondents weremost likely from the school living in adjacent neighborhoods). The majority of the responses were fromresponders who had been made aware of this survey via a letter sent by the City.

Q2-Q5: Over half of the responses were in agreement that the curb extensions installed at theintersection of Park Road and Somerset Drive had increased pedestrian safety (54%) and if removed,would decrease pedestrian safety (52%). As submitted through the comments section of Q4, themajority of respondents thought that there were other safety concerns at this intersection with speed oftraffic and volume of traffic. These two factors were thought to be a result of shortcutting to LougheedHighway and that the impact of shortcutting was through the entire stretch of Park Road, fromLougheed Highway to Harris Road not just at the subject intersection. These comments were furtherarticulated with 86% of respondents saying that they have concerns with vehicle speed on Park Road.

Q6-Q7: The majority of respondents, 74% thought that traffic control devises such as speed humps orspeed tables should be considered on Park Road between Lougheed Highway and Bonson Roadregardless of the side effects such as noise when vehicles cross them, or slower emergency vehiclesresponse times.

Q8: The final survey questions allowed respondents to provide any other comments or concerns.Comments were made with respect to the following topics:

#126872v1

- 76 -

PITT MEADOWS

• speeding issues are along the entire stretch of Park Road and should be looked atcomprehensively,

• speed control devises should be considered for the subject location and other Park Roadlocations,

• similar speeding issues are on Somerset and Bonson and adjacent to Edith McDermott School,• speed should be reduced to 30km/hr and speed limit signs posted at multiple locations along

Park Road,• various traffic calming devices suggestions including, stops signs and speed bumps,• lack of police radar and enforcement in the area,• the community is growing and traffic volumes are increasing,• difficult for vehicles to make the turn off of Park onto Somerset and stay within their lane,• u-turns occurring near the Park and Lougheed intersection are a hazard,• pedestrians safety concerns crossing Somerset Drive,• pedestrian safety concerns at the four-way-stop at Park and Bonson from vehicles not stopping

and,• Park Road has become a Lougheed and Harris bypass.

All comments can be found in the survey results provided in Attachment D.

Summary of Open HouseOn April 15, 2015, from 4:00pm — 6:00pm, the City held an Open House. Four residents, one Councillorand one member of the Active Transportation Committee attended. Two of the residents in attendanceresided in the Park Road and Somerset Drive neighborhood and two residents were from other areas inPitt Meadows. Discussion and comments at the open house were similar to the survey voicing concernswith speed, changing speed limit signage, difficulty of certain turning movements off Park Road on toSomerset Drive around the curb extension, pedestrian safety crossing Somerset Drive and ingress/egressfrom properties at this intersection. Ideas around other traffic calming devises were discussed includingtemporary speed humps and speed cushions.

RELEVANT POLICY: City of Pitt Meadows Policy C029 — Traffic Calming Policy (see Attachment E) hasbeen enacted for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a consistent procedure for traffic calmingapplications throughout the City. The policy is to be used for traffic calming requests on urban streetswithin the municipal boundaries of the City of Pitt Meadows. The policy is consistent with the CanadianGuide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming as published by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC)in cooperation with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

If a request is received with the required petition, an investigation is done to determine if the requestsmeet the criteria as per the Policy. Depending on the type of street, the policy lays out a calculation thatincludes factors such as speed and traffic volumes to determine if traffic calming is warranted. Ifwarrants are not met, the traffic calming request is denied. Should warrants be met, a review of impactson surrounding streets is completed and a survey is circulated to the residents directly affected. Aminimum response rate of 50% + 1 is required, of which at least 60% of the respondents must be infavor of the proposed installation. Traffic calming plans are prepared for the highest ranking trafficcalming requests and are forwarded to Council for budget approval and may be implemented in order ofpriority as part of the Capital Program. The Policy does not identify specific measures to beimplemented. Best practices for the situation are identified through the Traffic Calming plan process toensure the solution meets the unique character of the neighborhood. Some of the curb extensions inthe community have been recommended through this process.

#126872v1

- 77 -

PITT MEADOWS

Over the past 7 years, the City has received one formal petition where the Policy was applied. Thisrequest was found to be unwarranted. Other informal complaints or concerns of speeding, increasedtraffic volumes and pedestrian safety have been received by City staff. Staff has addressed each ofthese complaints with respect to the traffic calming policy and other guidelines.

The installation of pedestrian safety measures, such as the curb extensions installed at Park Road andSomerset Drive, can also be driven by the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan which recommended thatthe City upgrade all existing crosswalk locations to ensure all legs of the intersection have a markedcrosswalk and, where feasible, also have curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing time as well asaccessible curb letdowns at all intersection approaches to ensure the intersection is fully accessible. ThePark Road and Somerset Drive location was also identified as a high priority for curb extensions due tothe proximity of an Elementary School through the Safe Routes to School Program as well as the roadconfiguration.

The City has also installed similar pedestrian safety measures in other location of Pitt Meadows toimprove safety mostly at intersections as directed by the Safer City Committee. The Safer CityCommittee is comprised of members from the RCMP, ICBC, the Parents Advisory Committee, FireDepartment, Bylaw Enforcement and Engineering. The Committee can request funding from ICBC forstudies to review up to two locations a year. If warranted, improvements are installed and partiallyfunded by ICBC.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT: Transportation

EXPLORE CONSIDERATIONS: From the survey results and the open house along with the other researchconducted by staff the following have been identified for consideration and possible direction byCouncil:

User Conflict

1. Mark the turn radius off of Park Road on to Somerset Drive to clearly delineate the travel lane.

Pros ConsReduces conflicts between vehicles through the None identified.intersection.May slow traffic.Low cost to implement.

2. Improve ingress/egress for the residence that has contacted staff as contemplated in the staffreport discussed by Council on February 24, 2015 (Attachment A).

Pros ConsImproves ingress/egress. Modifications would require unplanned budgetModifications to the curb extensions would not expenditure.interfere with the crosswalk. The resident is concerned that the modification

will result in excess concrete at the front of theproperty.

#126872v1

- 78 -

PITT MEADOWS

Pedestrian Safety

3. Maintain the curb extensions.

Pros ConsThe curb extensions are at the terminus of a Ingress/egress for the subject property is not

walking path to Edith McDermott School. improved.

The survey results showed that more than half of

respondents felt pedestrian safety was improved.

Any traffic calming as a result of the narrowing of

the road way would be maintained.

4. Remove the curb extensions

Pros ConsIngress/egress for the subject property is Removal would require unplanned budget

improved, expenditure.

Pedestrian safety would be reduced.

Any speed reduction as a result of the narrowing

of the road way would be diminished.

Traffic Calming

5. Create a traffic calming plan for Park Road from l24 Avenue to Lougheed Highway

Pros ConsImprovement would be investigated for the full No communication has occurred with the

area and any recommended changes would be neighborhood from124th

Ave. to Bonson Road.

coordinated. No warrants have been identified based on the

Speeding concerns were identified by survey current traffic calming policy on Park Road.

respondents along other sections of Park road.

6. Install slower speed limit signs on Park Road.

Pros ConsSome traffic will slow down. Impact on adjacent neighborhoods unknown.

Low cost to implement. Potential confusion to drivers as 30km/hr signs are

usually for school zones.

No enforcement discussions have occurred with

the RCMP.

7. Direct staff to investigate installing a raised crosswalk across Park Road at Somerset Drive.

Pros ConsTraffic would slow down at this one location. Installation would require unplanned budget

expenditure.Slows emergency vehicle travel.

#126872v1

- 79 -

8. Install temporary speed control devices.

PITT MEADOWS

Pros ConsWould be able to test the impact on speeding in Installation would require unplanned budgetthe neighborhood and other streets. expenditure.Are mobile and could be used in other locations Slows emergency vehicle travel.within the community.

9. Amend Policy C029 — Traffic Calming Policy

Pros ConsCouncil can provide staff with direction on traffic The current policy mirrors nationally establishedcalming options and standards to explore, standards based on road classifications.

Submitted by: Kate Zanon, Director Approved by: Kim Grout, CAO

ATIACHMENT(S):

A. Staff Report, February 24, 2015, titled Park Road and Somerset Drive Driveway Egress Review

B. March 9, 2015 and March 16, 2015 (Draft) Active Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes

C. Survey Mail out Map

D. Survey Results

E. City of Pitt Meadows Policy C029 —Traffic Calming Policy

#126872v1

- 80 -

ATTACHMENT A

To: Chief Administrative Officer File: 5400-1 5/15

From: A/Director of Operations and BylawlPolicy:Development Services Policy No. C029

Date: February 17, 2015

RECOMMENDATIONS:

THAT Council:

A. Direct staff to implement Egress Improvement Option 3, as described in theattached staff memorandum dated February 16, 2015; OR

B. Other

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to:

• Recommend implementation of the driveway egressrecommended in the attached staff memorandum dated2015; and

• Seek direction from Council on engaging the broader neighborhood in adiscussion on the issue of traffic calming on Park Road.

BACKGROUND:

Key Issue:

In November 2014 staff was informed of a resident’s concern with the impact thecrosswalk at Park Road at Somerset Drive was having on driveway egress. Staffmet with the property owner, consulted with the City’s Safer City Committee,reviewed speed and traffic volume data on Park Road, and considered 4 optionsfor correcting the egress problem (See attached staff memorandum — AttachmentB).

CITY OF PITT MEADOWS

COUNCIL REPORT

Subject: Park Road & Somerset Drive Driveway EgressReview

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

improvementFebruary 16,

—1—- 81 -

Park Road and Somerset Crosswalk/Driveway Egress Review 2

Relevant Policy:

Council Policy C029 — Neighborhood Traffic Calming: establishes procedures todetermine whether traffic calming implementations are warranted (copy providedin attached staff memorandum).

Pedestrian and Cvclinci Master Plan — Safety Strategy 2.1 Pedestrian Crossings:alt is recommended that the City continue its curb extension program on keycorridors, such as those that are roUtes to schooL”

Map Showing Location of Curb Extensions in Pitt Meadows: Attachment C

Previous Council direction: January 21, 2015 Resolutions Attachment A.

RESPONSE OPTIONS SUMMARY: Please refer to the attached staff memorandumfor more details on the option presented.

Egress Improvement Options

Option I — Install 3 way stop signs Cost: $600 plus cost to relocate the cross walk

Cons ProsCould create southbound traffic queue in close May improve ability to enter intersection forproximity to Park Road traffic signal creating resident if no traffic queuing at stop signpotential for increased traffic accidents

Would create a confusing stop and gocondition for drivers heading west bound onPark RoadQueuing on northbound approach may blockdriveways at 12611 and 12615 Park RoadProperty owner would still have to egressacross two lanes of traffic

Would warrant moving crosswalk to opposite side of intersection (least desirable pedestrianalignment) to eliminate some of the traffic challenges created by installing stop signs (cost to bedetermined dependent on design direction)

Option 2 — Remove curb extensions Cost: $25,000

Cons ProsIncreased travel distance and reduced safety Would improve driveway egress for subjectfor pedestrian crossing property; could back up into single lane

Option 3- Reconfigure Curb Extension (Recommended Option) Cost $11,000

Cons ProsWould improve driveway egress for subjectproperty; allowing resident to back out intoonly one lane of traffic

Would allow for the remaining southwest

-2-#125409v1

- 82 -

Park Road and Somerset Crosswalk/Driveway Egress Review 3

portion of the curb extension to continue tofunction as a pedestrian safety measure

Option 4— Turn around on residential parcel Cost $12,600

Cons ProsPaves over large portion of resident’s front Existing curb extension continues to supportyard safe pedestrian movementsBacking up/turning around toward sidewalk Eliminates need for resident to back out intomay pose some additional risk to pedestrians the street; would be able to exit travelingon the sidewalk . forward

Traffic Calming Options

Based on City’s policy, traffic calming measures are not recommended by staff at thistime, but two options (speed tables and speed humps) were reviewed at the request ofresidents and are summarized in the attached staff memorandum.

Should Council wish to consider additional traffic calming on Park Road, staff wouldrecommend a more detailed review and cost benefit analysis of options andconsultation with the broader neighborhood.

iMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Implementation of recommended egress improvement option (Option 3) could befunded from the 2015 active transportation capital budget and incorporated in the2015 capital works program for implementation within two months.

• Additional traffic calming analysis and broader consultation on traffic calmingwould require more staff time and additional consulting resources to complete.Given the number of significant transportation initiatives already contemplated inthe 2015 work program staff workload is a concern.

A traffic calming review could be done in the context of a broader transportationreview leading up to the Transportation Town Hall meeting in May 2015.

ATTACHMENTS:A. January 21, 2015 Council resolutionsB. Staff memorandum dated February 16, 2015C. Location map for curb extension in Pitt Meadows

ZanonA/Director of Operations &Development Services

-3-#12540gv1

- 83 -

AflAcHME- A: CITYOF

Pitt M adowsThe ?ZzZ4at Place

MOVED BY COUNCILLOR Miyashita

SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR DingwaN

Bumoouts at Park and Somerset

THAT Council:

A. Direct staff to install three Stop signs and remove the bump-outs at Park and Somerset.Not Adopted

THAT Council:

A. Defer consideration of the foregoing motion pending receipt of a staff report on options toaddress the issues identified at the intersection of Park and Somerset.

CARRIED DEFEATED E1 DEFERRED fl

ACTION NOTICE

TO: FOR FOR COMMENTS:ACTION: INFO:

Kim Grout

Kate Zanon X

Don Jolley

Loma Jones

Kelly Kenney

Lori Graham

Mark Roberts

Kelly Swift

The above decision was made at a meeting of the City Council held on the date noted above andis sent to you for notation and/or such action as may b equired by your Department.

Febwa 3,2015Date Manager of LegisIjy6 èrvices

Council Meeting of: January21, 2015 File No:

Date Action Completed Signature

-4-#125226v1

- 84 -

CITY OF

.%à Pitt MeadowsI’ The ?2zZ.-tI Place

Council Meetinq of: January 21, 2015 File No:

MOVED BY COUNCILLOR Elkerton

SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR Bell

Capital Budget - Bump-outs

THAT Council:

A. Suspend the installation of any further bump-outs pending a CouncilWorkshop on the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan.

CARRIED J DEFEATED fl DEFERRED

ACTION NOTICE

TO: FOR FOR COMMENTS:ACTION: INFO:

Kim Grout

Kate Zanon X

Don Jolley

Loma Jones

Kelly Kenney

Lori Graham

Mark Roberts

Kelly Swift

The above decision was made at a meeting of the City Council held on the date notedabove and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your

Department.

February 3, 2015

__________________________________

Date Manager of Legislte Servicef)

Date Action Completed Signature

#125222v1-5-

- 85 -

ATTACHMENT BCity of P,tt flcodows

THE CITY OF PlU MEADOWS

MEMORANDUMThe 1Zoe4y’ ce

TO: Kate Zanon, A!Director of Operations and Development Services

FROM: Ike de Boer, Engineering Services Coordinator

DATE: February 16, 2015

SUBJECT: PARK ROAD AND SOMERSET DRIVE REVIEW

PURPOSE:

In November 2014, Staff was contacted to review the situation for a residence onPark Road at the intersection of Somerset Drive. The property owner requestedthat egress from the property be improved and that traffic speed on Park Roadbe reviewed. Following is staff’s review of the history of pedestrian and trafficimprovements as this location as well as a review of the concerns as identified.

BACKGROUND:

Communication with StaffIn November 2014, staff was informed about a concern with a property near theintersection of Park Road and Somerset Drive. Staff met with the concernedproperty owner on site to review the situation. Staff followed up with anothermeeting on site to further discuss the situation and share City policy and practicewith respect to traffic calming measures and to discuss options to improve egressfrom the property. Staff also referred this request to the Pitt Meadows Safer CityCommittee which includes representatives from the RCMP, ICBC and City staff.

The property in question has a driveway that would be non-conforming by 2015driveway standards, but is a legal non-conforming use. The egress for thisproperty has been challenging since the lot was developed, but the upgrade ofthe intersection to include curb extensions to enhance pedestrian safety hasfurther exacerbated the egress challenges. See Attachment A — Aerial ViewPrior to Curb Extensions and Attachment B — Aerial View After Curb Extensions.In addition, the increase in traffic moving through the neighborhood from generalgrowth in Pitt Meadows (an increase in 1500 cars per day over the last 20 years)and increased demand to access Lougheed Highway has also added to thechallenges for the property owner to exit his property.

Improvements to Pedestrian SafetyIn December 2012 Council approved the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Planwhere it was recommended that the City upgrade all existing crosswalk locations

20-Feb-2015#125316v1

-6-- 86 -

Park Road and Somerset Drive Review 2

to ensure all legs of the intersection have a marked crosswalk ancJ wherefeasible, also have curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing time as well asaccessible curb letdowns at all intersection approaches to ensure the intersectionis fully accessible.

That same year, the City hired a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer toreview the intersection of Park Road and Somerset Drive and provide a designfor pedestrian safety. The 2012 Safety Review is attached as Attachment C. ThePark and Somerset location was identified as high priority due to the proximity ofan Elementary School nearby and the road configuration at this location. Thestudy recommended the optimal placement for a curb extension at Park andSomerset. Adjacent residents in the area were notified of the design andcomments were requested. No comments were received. Following the publicoutreach a design was completed and the curb extensions were installed (2012).With respect to pedestrian safety, the curb extensions have improved the safemovement of pedestrians at this location. (Note: the principal purpose of a curbextension is to improve pedestrian safety not calm traffic, although traffic calmingmay be a secondary benefit.)

POLICY:

City of Pitt Meadows Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan

City of Pitt Meadows Policy C029 - Traffic Calming Policy (see Attachment D)

TAC Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Depending on the identified next steps fiscal implications would range from $0-$13,000. Potential costs are further outlined in the discussion section.

DISCUSSION:

From the conversations with the property owner, as well as, the site visits thefollowing issues have been identified for staff review and comment:

1) Driveway egress into the intersection for the subject property. Currently,egress from the driveway requires backing into both lanes of traffic.

2) Traffic volume and perceived speed on Park Road.

3) Impact of the installation of the curb extensions on the subject property.

4) A request to install two additional stop signs creating a three way stop atthe intersection of Somerset Drive and Park Road.

#125316v1

-7-- 87 -


Review of Traffic Control by the Safer City CommitteeThe committee discussed the concerns raised by the resident at their meetingson December 17, 2014 and January 21, 2Q15. The committee spentconsiderable time discussing the intersection. Following is a review of thecommittee findings:

Pitt Meadows RCMP detachment reviewed their speedltraffic unit data andreported that:

they have been out to this location before and there have been no signsof speeding. The City’s speed reader board was installed on Park Roadjust west of Somerset Drive and there were no issues with speeding at thislocation. It was noted that from 1996-2015 there has only been onevehicle accident- at that intersection which resulted in no personal injuiy(excerpt from the Safer City Committee minutes, December 17, 2014).

ICBC representatives reviewed accident history at this location and did not findthis location to be a concern.

The committee reviewed several ideas with respect to traffic calming includingstop signs, speed humps and relocation of the curb extensions. All ideas did notmeet uniform traffic criteria (described further in the following section) for action.The committee determined that data did not show a speed concern at thislocation, but did respect that egress from the subject property was a challenge.

Traffic VolumeThe 2014 traffic counts on Park Road just north of the curb extension recorded3,803 vehicles in a 24 hour period. Transportation Association of Canada (TAC)Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads has a table of Characteristics forUrban Roads which notes that Collector Roads be designed to handle 8,000 —

12,000 vehicles a day The 2014 counts show that vehicle volume is well withincollector standard limits which are the designation of Park Road. See AttachmentE — Characteristics of Urban Roads.

OPTIONS

The concerns identified can be broken down into two categories, egress improvementoptions and traffic calming options.

Egress Improvement Options

Option I - Installation of a 3-Way Stop3-way stop signs would not be warranted or recommended based on the TAGManual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada. As per Section A 2.2.1.2Usage Guidelines:

Stop sign controls result in delays to drivers and may increase frequencyof collisions (from hasty drivingj. Therefore, stop signs should not be used

#125316v1

-8-- 88 -


indiscriminately. Stop signs are not intended as speed control devices;and their usage should therefore be limited to the control of right-of-wayconflicts.

Park Road and Somerset Drive are both classified as collector streets, but sincePark Road has twice the volume of traffic, the TAC only recommends theplacement of a stop sign on Somerset Drive. A stop sign currently exists at thislocation.

The configuration of the traffic movements, pedestrian movements anddriveways into this intersection would result in the non-traditional placement ofstop signs if two additional signs were to be installed. See Attachment G. Theplacement of two additional signs would result in the following vehicle movement:stopping prior to the intersection, then entering the intersection and then stoppingagain for the crosswalk. This will create confusion for drivers and reducepedestrian safety.

In addition, studies show that vehicles may reduce their speed within a shortdistance of the approach to the stop sign but may increase their speed againafter going through the intersection altering the movement of traffic farther downthe street. Stop signs which are not warranted may also frustrate drivers whothen have the potential to ignore them.

Review by ISL Engineering

Advantages• Inexpensive to implement.• Stop signs may improve the ability for the subject property to enter into the

intersection.

Disadvantages• Creates a traffic queue at the Park Road southbound approach, generating

potential rear-end collision risk for turning vehicles just exiting the signalizedintersection at Lougheed Highway.

• Creates driver’s confusion stop-and-go condition traveling along Park Road —

and potential incompliance of 3-way stop control, particularly at night time.• Pedestrian crossing should be moved to the opposite side of the intersection

(note this crosswalk location was reviewed in 2012 and determined to be lesseffective for improving pedestrian safety at this location).

• Unnecessary stop and traffic queue on the northbound approach may blockthe driveways for the 12611 and 12615 Park Road lots.

• Entering both lanes of traffic would still be required to egress from the subjectproperty and may cause additional confusion for vehicles travelling alongPark Road.

Estimated Cost: $600.00

#125316v1

-9-- 89 -


Staff Assessment: While stop signs would be a low cost solution, staff feels thatwithout a warrant for their installation in combination with the awkwardconfiguration that would be created at the intersection this is not a recommendedsolution.

Ontion 2- Removal of the Curb Extension

The maneuvering of vehicles in and out of the subject driveway could be madeeasier with the removal of the curb extension. There would be costs associatedwith removing the curb extension not to mention the forgone costs for the designand installation from 2012.

Removing the curb extension would increase the distance for pedestrians tocross resulting ill a reduction in pedestrian safety. In light of the one elementaryschool in the neighborhood removal of the extensions would have an impact onvarious residents in this neighborhood. In addition, this curb extension wasconstructed with grant assistance of $5000.00 from ICBC. There is the potentialthey would ask to have this money refunded.

Review by ISL Engineering: ISL was not asked to review this option.

Estimated Cost: $25,000.00

Staff Assessment: Staff does not recommend this option. The history showsthat the installation of the curb extensions was done with appropriate analysisand the improvements to pedestrian safety at this location should be maintained.

Option 3- Reconfiguration of the Curb Extension

ISL Engineering found that if the existing MMCD C5 barrier curb and landscapingwest of the subject driveway letdown were removed and replaced with anextended driveway letdown and an MMCD C4 rollover curb the egress situationwould be improved. This option would offer an easier path for vehicles backingout of the driveway at the subject property, as they could now “cut the corner”,and this would allow them to back into one lane of traffic only. In addition, thismodification would return a partial road shoulder to assist with safe ingress andegress. See Attachment G — Reconfiguration of the Curb Extension.

Review by ISL Engineering:Advantages

• Vehicles backing out at the subject property could do so in one lane of trafficonly.The existing curb extension would continue to work effectively as a pedestriansafety measure.

• Low construction disturbance to residents.

#1 25316v1

- 10-- 90 -

Park Road and Somerset Drive Review


Disadvantages

6

• Backing up while turning towards the sidewalk may pose as an additional riskfor pedestrians.


Staff Assessment: Staff is not recommending this option as there is someconcern that vehicles turning around on site would be confusing to both vehiclesand pedestrians and the subject property would lose a large portion of their frontyard.

Traffic Calming Options

The City of Pitt Meadows Traffic Calming Policy (See Attachment D) states that trafficcalming measures for collector roads may be considered on a case by case basis.Criteria with respect to 1) speed and 2) volume are evaluated and points ranging from0-25 for each of the two criteria are assigned. The analysis of the Park Road atSomerset Drive location found 0 points for speed and 19 points for volume totaling 19points out of 50. Per the policy, traffic calming is considered where 25 or more pointsare calculated therefore traffic calming measures are not warranted in this area.

#12531 6v1

Staff Assessment: Staff feels that this option would improve the situation for thesubject property and achieve an egress situation similar to that prior to theinstallation of the curb extension. This option would also keep the pedestriansafety improvements intact. Staff feels this is the best option to proceed with atthis time.

Option 4 - Provision of a Turn-around on Site

A turn around on the subject property could be created. This turn around wouldnecessitate replacing a portion of the subject property’s front lawn with a surfacethat can be used for driving. This solution was the least favourable by theresident as a substantial portion of the front lawn would be lost to drivewaysurface.

Review by ISL Engineering:

Advantages• Existing curb extension remains in place and continues to work effectively.• May be the safest turning movement option as the need for backing out into

the street is eliminated.• Fast construction time and low disturbance to residents.

-11 -

- 91 -


Even though traffic calming measures are not being recommended or warranted twooptions were reviewed.

Option I - Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table

A speed table is a raised area of roadway that is intended to slow traffic. Datacollected from a neighboring municipality where raised crosswalks are common,found that most motorists slow to 30 - 35 km/hour to traverse a speed table.Raised crosswalks are elevated to a height that matches the adjacent sidewalk toallow for safe mobility device (i.e. wheelchairs or strollers) crossing.

Review by ISL Engineering:

Advantages• Reduces overall speeds.• Cyclists can safely ride over speed tables.

Disadvantages• Storm water ponding may occur; additional catch basins likely required.• Emergency services can be delayed. .

• Potential for an increase in traffic noise and vibration from vehicles travellingover the table.

• Discomfort for local residents who must travel over them every day.• Increase in road maintenance costs such as street sweeping and snow

removal.• Not a traffic calming measure identified in the Traffic Calming Policy.


Staff Assessment: Staff is not recommending any traffic calming measures atthis time. In addition, since the City of Pitt Meadows has not used raisedcrosswalks as a traffic calming measure in the past, staff suggests that a costbenefit analysis study on the general use of raised crosswalks be completed priorto considering introduction of raised crosswalks/speed tables in Pitt Meadows.

Option 2- Speed Humps

Speed humps are located on road surfaces away from intersections with theintent of reducing traffic speeds.

A quick review of speed humps identified concerns similar to raisedcrosswalks/speed tables such as the following: impacts on emergency vehicleresponse times, impacts on operations vehicles such as snow plowing and streetsweeping, additional costs for road maintenance and adjacent residents oftenreport an increase in noise due to vehicular travel over the speed bumps.

#125316v1

- 12-- 92 -


Review by ISL Engineering: ISL was not asked to review this option specifically,but commented that the advantages and disadvantages would be very similar tothe raised crosswalk.

Staff Assessment: Staff is not recommending any traffic calming measures atthis time. In addition, since the City of Pitt Meadows has not used speed humpsas a traffic calming measure in the past, staff suggests that speed humps beincluded in the cost benefit anaTysis study suggested for raised crosswalks priorto considering introduction of speed humps in Pitt Meadows.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff is recommending that the existing curb extension be reconfigured to improveegress for the subject property. The estimated cost of $11,500.00 could be paid out ofthe capital budget for active transportation.

Traffic calming needs in this area of Pitt Meadows have not been determined through alarger consultation process with the neighborhood therefore staff is not recommendingany traffic calming actions at this time. Respecting that Council has requested a futurediscussion on traffic calming staff recommends that public outreach options bediscussed at that time.

SUMMARYICONCLUSION:

From the review by staff, traffic data provided by RCMP and the review of the Safer CityCommittee staff is recommending that improvements to egress from the subjectproperty be completed. Traffic speed in the area should continue to be monitored, butno further measures are being recommended at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Aerial View Prior to Curb Extensions

Attachment B: Aerial View After Curb Extensions

Attachment C: 2012 ISL Park Road and Somerset Drive Safety Review

Attachment D: City of Pitt Meadows Policy C029 - Traffic Calming Policy

Attachment E: Characteristics of Urban Roads

Attachment F: Three-Way Stop Sign Option

Attachment G: Reconfiguration of the Curb Extension

CC: Katia Robichaud, Engineering Technologist

#125318v1

- 13-- 93 -

ATTACHMENT A

/i- 94 -

ATTACHMENT B

___

II- 95 -

CATfACHMENT

Engineering

_________

and Land Services

City of Pitt MeadowsIke deBoerPitt Meadows Capital Works - Park Road and Somerset Drive Safety ReviewBorg Chan and Darcy Palombi

\.

Memorandum

- -1.0 -Background and SdObjedllves- -

The intersection of Park Road and Somerset Drive has two pedestrian crosswalks. There is a marked crosswalk(zebra type) on the west side of the intersection crossing Park Road and the other marked crosswalk (line type) ison the south side of the intersection crossing Somerset Drive. The marked pedestrian crosswalks give access to anexisting pathway on the southwest corner of the intersection leading to Edith McDermott Elementary School and

ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.#301,20338—65 Avenue 1.angey, BC V2Y 2X3 T: 604.530.2288 F: 604.530.1132 islenglneerlng.com

Page 1 of 5

To:Attention:Reference:From:

Date:

Project No:

April24, 201230829

The City of Pitt Meadows is planning to implement traffic calming measures, such as curb extensions, along ParkRoad between I 92a Street and Lougheed Highway. Park Road is a 2-lane east-west connector road located southof Lougheed Highway (Highway 7). The road is connected to ‘192a Street in the west and Lougheed Highway in theeast To become the south leg of the Lougheed Highway and Meadow Gardens Way signalized Intersection, theroad has a 90 degree cuive at the intersection with Somerset Drive, as shown in Figure 1.

J1 Plan viewt tersectionofI arkRoada

- 16-- 96 -

I)Memorandum

Sommerset Park. In addition the local traffic through traffic along Park Road originates from Lougheed Highway ascommuters travel to the Pitt Meadows West Coast Express Station.

ISL Engineering has been retained by the City to review the vehicular and pedestrian safety at the intersection ofPark Road and Somerset Drive and to determine any potential safety concerns due to the issues on geometriclayout, visibility to pedestrian or vehicle, crosswalk type and pavement markings at this intersection. This TechMemo is to identify the existing and potential traffic operations and safety issues at the intersection of Park Roadand Somerset Drive as well as to determine the appropriate traffic calming measures that can improve the safety forboth crossing pedestrians and moving vehicles.

2.0 Existing Condition

The existing road pavement width of Park Road is approximately 13m wide with 2 traffic lanes (westbound andeastbound). There are raised sidewalks along the north and south sides of the road. The speed limit along ParkRoad Is 50 kilometers per hour but a road curve warning sign with advisory speed limit of 30 kilometers per hour isposted when approaching the curve from the signalized intersection with Lougheed Highway. ‘Crosswalk Ahead’warning signs are also provided at both approaches. A raised median separates the two lanes of traffic along thecuiv between Lougheed Highway and Somerset Drive.

The road currently permits on-street parking on both sides. Park Road has no posted bicycle facilities but, is on theC41 Meadowtown/Maple Meadows Station/Pitt Meadows Center bus route. A northbound/eastbound bus stop forthe Community Bus C41 is found at the far side (southeast corner) of the Park Road/Somerset Drive intersection.Park Road is located in a residential area with lots of residential driveway accesses.

2011 hourly traffic volumes, as provided by City of Pitt Meadows, display a daily two-way trafflc•volume of 4,100vehicles. During the AM peak hour, the hourly traffic volumes are 120 (westhoundlsouthbound) and 130(eastboundlnorthbound) vehicles. For the PM peak hour, the hourly traffic volumes were counted as 160(westbound/southbound) and 190 (eastbound/northbound) vehicles.

Pedestrian volumes are not available and one crossing pedestrian was observed during the site visits. With off-street pathway connecting to the local park and primary school, it is expected some local residents and schoolstudents used the crosswalks regularly. Transit users may also use the crosswalk when boarding/alighting tolfromthe bus stops on Lougheed Highway.

3.0 Safety Review

The intersection of Park Road and Somerset Drive was visited by ISL traffic engineers on a typical weekday on twoseparate occasions (February 16 and April 12, 2012). Although no collision data is available, during the on-siteobservations, the following road safety issues were identified for the Park Road crosswalk that could lead to theconftjsion of drivers and other road users as well as traffic conflict and collision risk:

1. crosswalk located at the center of a 90 degree curve;2. limited sight distance for pedestrians locating westbound approaching vehicles - southbound from the

intersection of Lougheed Highway and Meadows Gardens Way;3. limited sight distance for westbound vehicles locating pedestrians waiting to cross from the north side to

the south side of Park Road.

Page2of5

-17-- 97 -

_____

EnginE ring

Memorandum

The current marked crosswalk is approximately 3.3m wide which is acceptable as per the Pedestrian CrossingControl Manual forBritisli Columbia (prepared by BC Ministsy of Transportation and Highways) for posted speedlimits that are less than 60 kilometers per hour.

The current sight distance from the northbound crossing position to an approaching vehicle Is 40m. TAG guidelinessuggest a Stopping Sight Distance of 65m for vehicles traveling 50km/hr. Based on site observations, theobstruction that is limiting sight isa hedge located at 19621 Park Road as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 2 shows the view of a pedestrian waiting to cross from the north to the south side of Park Road using theexisting crosswalk while Figure 3 shows the view of a westhound!southbound vehicle approaching the intersection.It is found that the hedge at the edge of the driveway is an impermeable object limiting sight distance.

4.0 Improvement Options

Based on the inadequate sight distances and corresponding pedestiian!vehic!e safety concerns, potentialimprovement measures are proposed to mitigate identified safety issues currently being experienced at theintersection of Park Road and Somerset Drive. There are two possible options to increase the road safety at thislocation.

Option I maintains the existing crosswalk location and installs curb extensions on either side of Park Road. Thisoption gives pedestrians and vehicles longer sight distance and narrows the road width for shorter pedestriancrossing distance. Curb extensions will promote traffic calming causing drivers to drive slower which, increases thesafety of pedestrians. Option I is shown in Figure 4.

Option 2 relocates existing crosswalk acmss Park Road to the east side of the intersection with curb extensions oneither side of Park Road. This option increases the sight distance for pedestrians and vehicles as well as reduce thecrossing distance. However, this option creates an extra crossing for pedestrians (majority are students) travelingfrom the north side of Park Road to the school. Option 2 is shown in Figure 5.

Page 3of5

- 18-- 98 -

Engineeringand Land Services

The positive and negative effects of both options were reviewed and summarized in Table 1.

Table I Option Comparison

Memorandum

Option I Option 2(maintain existing crosswalk) (relocate existing crosswalk) -

• increase sight distance from • increases sight distance from4Omto5Om 4Omto8Om

• maintains existing crosswalk • achIeves suggested sight• does not hinder vehicles making distance as per TAC

Positive Effects left turns from Park Road • possible area of refuge at centralwestbound to Somerset Drive median

• reduced length of crosswalk • reduced length of crosswalk(decreased pedestrian exposure (decreased pedestrian exposureto vehicles) to vehicles)

• maintains single crossing toexisting pathway tà school/park

. does not achieve suggested • remove/eradicate existing• sight distance as per TAC sictewalk

• pedestrians need to cross at one • will hinder left turns from Parktime (no refuge) Road to Somerset Drive

• sight distance to curb extension • creates two crossings firNegative Effects is also a safety concern and may pedestrians traveling from the

cause drives to swerve if they north side Of Park Road to theare unaware of the narrowed pathwaystreet • may affects driveway access at

19621 Park Road• will affect loading zone of C41• Bus

Page 4 of 5

Option itecrosswaIkk

- 19-- 99 -

Engineeringand Land Services

Memorandum

5.0 RecommendatIon

Based on the review of the two potential improvement options, Option ito maintain the existing crosswalk locationis recommended due to one less crossing (exposure) for pedestrians to the existing pathway, in particular safer forschool students. Maintaining the existing crosswalk will also prevent jaywalking caused by the confusion of a newcrosswalk. However, Option I may be further improved because it does not achieve the suggested sight distanceas per TAC. There are a few options that can achieve the suggested sight distance.

The City of Pitt Meadows can consult with the 19621 Park Road owner and remove or relocate the hedging locatedin the City’s ROW (right of way). By removing the hedging, the sight distance will increase to 65m achieving the

Additional or enlarged signage of Crosswalk Ahead warning sign on the westbound approach can be considered toincrease driver awareness of the pedestrian crossing. Re-painting the existing crosswalk regularly can also increasethe visibility of the crosswalk. A flashing or pedestrian signalized intersection may be utilized in this case but may bediscouraged by residents in the residential area. The modifications to crossing types should be reviewed with itswarrant analysis ‘itien pedestrian volumes and collision data are available.

The City of Pitt Meadows can consider reducing the overall posted speed limit along Park Road to 40 kilometers perhour. Reducing the overall posted speed limit along Park Road will reduce the suggested sight distance and createa safer road in its entirety.

The appropriateness to provide the curb extensions at this location was also reviewed. With removing the hedge atthe northwest corner, the sight distance of 60m was measured from the existing north sidewalk to westboundvehicles. Although it is close to the TAC’s requirement, it is suggested that the traffic calming measures, such ascurb extension, should be provided at the first intersection when vehicles leaving the major intersection (LougheedHighway/Meadow Gardens Way) with relatively high vehicle speed. The provision of curb extensions can alsoprovide larger waiting area for crossing pedestrians who use the pathway. The impacts to westhouncl through trafficby vehicles waiting to turn left, was also reviewed. However, with the wide road pavement width and the presenceof raised median, there is sufficient space for one to two vehicles waiting at the centre of the Intersection withoutsignificantly affecting the westbound through traffic.

We trust that this Technical Memorandum meets the City of Pitt Meadows’ requirements. If you have any questionsor need more information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Darcy Palombi, EIT Borg Chan, P.Eng., PTOE,Transportation Engineer Manager, Traffic Engineering and Road Safety

Page5of5

- 20 -

- 100 -

ATrACHMENT D

PITT MEADOWS POLICY MANUAL POLICY NO.C029

SUBJECT: Approved by Council: October 2, 2007Traffic Calming Policy Reaffirmed: July 3, 2012

PURPOSE:

This policy has been enacted for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a consistant procedure fortraffic calming applications.

The intent of this procedure is to determine whether traffic calming implementations would restore streetsto their intended function by reducing vehicular speeds, discouraging through traffic and minimizingconflicts between street users.

APPUCATION:

This policy is to be used for traffic calming requests on urban streets within the municipal boundaries of theCity of Pitt Meadows.

POLICY:

1 . A request for the implementation of traffic calming measures is to be made in writing to the Operationsand Development Services Department, Attention: Engineering and must include a petition signed byat least 25% of the residents impacted by those measures. The area of impact will be determined bythe Engineering Department.

2. Traffic calming measures will generally only be considered for local roads. Collector roads may beconsidered on a case by case basis and lanes may be eligible as a resident frmnded initiative. Arterialroads will not be considered for traffic calming measures.

3 The traffic calming measures requested shall have no negative impact on adjacent streets

4. City Staff will investigate whether the traffic calming request satisfies the minimum score based on thecriteria from the table below:

CRITERIA POINTS BASIS FOR POINT ASSIGNMENT

85th percentile1 traffic speeds more. than 10 kmlh above the posted limitSpeed 0 to 25 (5 points for every kmlh).

Volume 0 to 25 Average daily traffic volumes (5 points for every 1000 vehicles)

Total Points50 Need 25 or more points to be considered for Traffic CalmingPossible

Definion lbr 85th percenle the speed at which 85% of the vehicles in the sample travel at or below that speed and 15%travel above.

- 21 - #39681v2

- 101 -

5. When the minimum score is less than 25, traffic calming measures are deemed unwarranted and therequest for traffic calming will be denied. A request for traffic calming that scores less than 25 pointsmay be considered again in two (2) years time at the request of the residents from the impacted area.

6. When the score is 25 or more points, the resident(s) will be advised that in order to continue with therequest, City Staff will circulate a survey to the residents directly affected. A minimum response of 50%+ I ballot must be returned, of which at least 60% of the respondents must be in favor.

7. A traffic calming plan will be prepared by City staff when the survey response supports the trafficcalming request. Traffic Calming measures must be consistent with the Canadian Guide toNeighbourhood Traffic Calming as published by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) incooperation with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

8. All traffic calming requests will be ranked in accordance with their total points as outlined in section 4above (speed, volume) and other qualitative factors such as sensitive frontage (i.e. school zones),pedestrian generators (i.e. senior housing), sidewalks and impact on emergency services.

9. Highest ranking traffic calming requests will be forwarded to Council for consideraton and fundingallocation as part of the annual budget and business planning process.

10. Should Council approve funding for traffic calming, the plan may be implemented in order of priority aspart of the Capital program.

11. Follow-up evaluations of the traffic calming plan will be undertaken by City Staff at six to twelve monthsafter implementation. Traffic volumes, traffic speed and compliance with the traffic calming devices willbe monitored and a report analyzing the performance of trafflc calming plan will be forwarded toCouncil

vl#39681v2

- 22 -

- 102 -

I

Attachement E

Table 1.3.4.2 Characteristics of Urban Roads—

— pPublic Lanes Locals Collectors Arterials Expressways Freeways

Residential Conimercial Residential lnduatjComm. ResIdentIal IndustJComm. Minor Majortraffic traffic

traffic service traffic movement not a traffic movement secondary traffic movement and land movement traffic movementprimary movement optimum

function consideration consideration access of qual Importance majorconsldeion primary mobtity

onsideratlon considerationland service I

land access only land access primary function traffic movement and land some access rigid accessaccess no access no accessfunction access of equal Importance control control

*

(veh/day) <500 <1000 <1000 <3000 <8000 1000 —12 000 000—20 000 10000—30 000 >10 000 >20 000jtypcal)_______

flowcharacteristIcs interrupted flow Interrupted flow Interrupted flow ninteniupted flow except at sIgnals uninterrupted free-flow

and clks flow except at (gradesignals L_

deslgnspeed 30-40 30-50 50-80 50-70 60-100 80-110 80-120Cki1/h) V

average running V

speeds(km/h) 20-30 20-40 30-70 40-80 50-90 60-90 70-110J!!Pak)

V

passenger passenger passenger all types up to 20% all types up to all types up tovehicle type and service all types and service all types and service all types all types 20% trucks 20% trucksvehicles vehicles vehiclesarterlals, arterlais,desirable public lanes, locale public lanes, locals, collectors locals, collectors, arterlals collectors, arterlais, expressways,

connections freeways expressways, expressways,freeways

transit service not permitted generally avoided permitted express and local buses permittedV express buses express buses

onlyaccommodation no restrictions or special no restrictions or special no restrIctIons or special lane widening or separate fadhitlesof cycUsts V facilities - facIlitIes facilities V desirable prohibIted prohibited

sidewalks sidewalks sidewalkssidewalksaccommodation pedestrians permitted, normally on provided provided sidewalks may be provided, pedestrians pedestriansof pedestrians no special facilities one or both where pmed where separation for traffic lanes preferred prohibited prohibitedboth sides requiredparking no restrictions or restrictions few restrictions other than peak hour prohibited or peak prohibited prohibItedsome restrictions(typically) one side only peak hour restrictions hour restrictions

V

mln. intersection V

1600

spacing’ (m)V as needed 60 60 200 400 800 (between

Interohanges)right-of-way — —_______________ —_________________

width (m) 6-10 15-22 20-24 202 >602(typicalif)

— I

Notes: 1. Further information on intersection spacing Is provided in Chapter 2.3, IntersectIons.2. Arterial rights of way 20 m in width applicable to retrofit cQnditions only.3. Wider rights of way are often required to accommodate other facilities such as utilities, noise mitigation installations, bikoways, and

landscaping. For new streets, the immediate provision of wider rights of way may be considered to accommodate such facilities.

0CD

CD3

a)CoCD

A)

CA)

G)CD03CD

C)

CDU,

Co.

G)

0.CD

C-)

0)0.0)

00)0.U)

C-)=m

rn

- 23 -

- 103 -

1

‘:)‘

Afl7kCHMENT

c:‘?

N

:0£4

- 104 -

6

I.

320ç0

SCb

Sb3’

It)c.,J

- 105 -

C

WE

P,tnted 2015/02119

City of Pitt MeadowsCurb Extension Instal0 250 500 750

• 2004 • 2011

o 2006 • 2012

9

- 106 -

AIrACHMENT 9

CITY OF PITT MEADOWSACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGHeld at the Pitt Meadows City Hall, Rivers Room, Pitt Meadows, BC

Monday, March 9, 2015

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: STAFF:Chair - Peter Jongbloed - PJ Ike de Boer, Engineering ServicesVice Chair - Richard Boulton - RB Coordinator - 1DBMarcella Shockey — MSRichard Harmston — RHMichelle Browne — MB GUESTS:

REGRETS:Tracy Miyashita, Council Liaison — TMAdam Keizer - AK

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm.

Adoption of Agenda

The Agenda was reviewed; motion to adopt RH seconded by MS.

Adoption of Minutes

Minutes of the last meeting held on November 17, 2014 were reviewed with no changes.Motion to adopt minutes by PJ and seconded by MB.

CARRIED.

1) New Business

A. As per the Terms of Reference for the Active Transportation Advisory Committee, aChair and Vice Chair are selected each year. The Committee members were requestedto select a committee chair and co-chair for the 2015 term. Peter Jongbloed will remainas chair and Richard Boulton will remain as co-chair until 2016. As the committee is nowa member short, Council has requested that a member from the High School berecruited to sit in as a committee member.- ID to contact the High School for potential candidates, resumes will be reviewed bystaff with a recommendation to City Council for approval.

B. A discussion was held on the Park Road and Somerset Drive curb extensions and todiscuss options to alleviate the adjacent resident’s issues with egress and access to theproperty. Residents also have concerns about speeding in the area of Park Road andwhat can be done to address the speeding concerns. Options discussed were:- RB notes that a meeting be held with the affected resident and lay out what options

are available to them at this time;

#125874v1Minutes 9 Mar 2015- 107 -

- The committee is in consensus to not install a ‘speed table’ in this area at this timeuntil a warrant analysis has been done or other options are explored prior to anytraffic calming device being installed;

- MB notes that a public consultation be held with area residents to gauge support andapproval for ‘traffic calming’ measures and to get the residents input and commentson what has been done to date, this option was endorsed by the whole committee;

- ID to set up meeting within the next week and get the committee to discuss how toget the area residents involved in a survey, open house, mail out or if there is anyother method of receiving comments from the neighborhood regarding trafficcalming.

C. Signage Sub Committee — RB is a member at large on the Parks and LeisureCommission, RB noted to the committee that trail signs are in the Parks and LeisureServices work plan for 2015 and that this Committee will have an opportunity tocomment on sign type and location.

D. ID forwarded to PJ a list of previous projects from 2009 and what funds were spent onpedestrian and cycling projects in the City. This was sent to Council during budgetprocess by an email letter noting to keep the funding in place for Active Transportationprojects.

E. ID gave an update to the committee on proposed projects for 2015. ID requested thecommittee forwarding any suggested new projects to staff that can be included in the2016 work plan. One project that was suggested is the installation of a markedcrosswalk at the corner of Baynes Road and Ford Road.

F. ID gave an update on what can be done at the Harris Road CP Crossing and options forimproving the sidewalk width to accommodate cyclists. ID notes that additional roadpanels could be installed (at a cost) by CP to make the widening happen. Staff to reviewand contact CP if this is possible.

G. RB to take the committee’s suggestion of installing some sort of seating on the two wharfstructures in the Osprey Village area to the Parks and Leisure Commission for comment.

H. Improving the lighting at the intersection of Albertan and Hammond Road wasdiscussed by the committee with a suggestion to install a different type of light fixtureinto the existing streetlights; LED lighting was suggested as it is a white light instead ofthe existing dull yellow light, the change may help lighting levels at the corner. ID toinvestigate if Hydro could install a ‘Mast Arm’ light on a Hydro pole at the intersection foradditional lighting.

2) Information Items

A. PJ provided an update on what HUB (Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition) promotes theyinclude; instruction to school children on bike safety, proper attire, cycling lessons etc.PJ will give an update at the next meeting on how much it will cost for HUB to do asession with each elementary school. Funding to come from this committee’s budget.

#125874v1Minutes 9 Mar 2015- 108 -

3) Roundtable Discussion

- RB gave an update on Parks and Leisure Services Committee activities andupcoming agenda items

- RH inquired on who is responsible to correct uneven sidewalk panels, ID noted toRH that the City’s Operations has a annual fund to repair sidewalks throughout thecommunity and that problem areas should be reported directly to them.

AdjournmentThe meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm.

Next Meeting

It was decided that the next regular meeting will be held on May 11, 2015 at 7:00 in the City HallRivers Room.

A Special Committee Meeting will be held at the City Hall on Monday March 16, 2015 at7:00 o’clock to discuss ways to engage the public in the area of Park Road and SomersetDrive regarding Traffic Calming and not have the affected resident come in at this time.

125874v1

Minutes 9 Mar2015- 109 -

RIDESINGLE

FILE

iii..’—

SARETHE

ROAD

#125874v1

Minutes 9 Mar 2015- 110 -

CITY OF PITT MEADOWSACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIALMEETING

Held at the Pitt Meadows City Hall, Rivers Room, Pitt Meadows, BCMonday, March 16, 2015

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: STAFF:Chair - Peter Jongbloed - PJ Ike de Boer, Engineering ServicesVice Chair - Richard Boulton - RB Coordinator - 1DBMarcella Shockey — MSRichard Harmston — RHMichelle Browne — MB GUESTS:Tracy Miyashita, Council Liaison — TMAdam Keizer — AK Anne Berry — Manager of Development

ServicesREGRETS:

The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm.

Adoption of Agenda

There was no formal agenda for the committee to review.

Adoption of Minutes

Adoption of the Minutes of the last meeting held on March 9, 2015 will be reviewed at the nextscheduled meeting to be held on May 11 2015 -

1) New Business

A. The committee was requested by Council to comment and discuss ways in how best toengage the public in exploring options including but not limited to, removal of the existingbump outs (curb extensions), and installation of speed tables in the area of Park Roadand Somerset Drive

The Committee discussed issues that a resident at 19620 Park Road has with theexisting ‘curb extension’ on Park Road at Somerset Drive. The committee discussedhow best to assist the resident in resolving the access and egress issue to the propertycaused by the curb extension. This curb extension is directly adjacent to the residencewith the driveway going thru the curb extension, members of the committee made avariety of suggestions on how to make the situation better for the resident to access andegress the property.

#125971v1Minutes 9 Mar 2015

- 111 -

ID noted that the committee was not tasked with determining alternatives to the curbextension and that Council wanted comments on how best to receive feedback from thepublic regarding traffic calming measures on Park Road.

The members did discuss several options in how best to engage public opinion in thePark Road area including:

- An online Survey Monkey to the residents to fill in- A Letter to Edith McDermott School requesting feedback on curb

extensions, traffic calming etc.- Determine the area to survey- City Web page- Social Media

Most favourable among the committee to obta area feedback were

- A letter to Edith McDgt School students and,- An online survey ofa residents using Survey Monkey

The Committee deferred a formal recdrniendation until the committee talks to theresident at 19620 Park Road The issue will be discussed further at the next regularActive Transportation meeting to be held on May 11, 2015

After a lengthy discussion the committe npted that any opinions from the public wouldnot solve the redents issue withAthe extension and driveway egress from theproperty

AK brought forward a moon to have ffitfent come in to a committee meeting so themembers could discuss options on impng the situation with the access/egress intothe resident’s driveway.

Lhe mdonwas carried by ill members of the committee to have theiident meet with the committee as soon as possible

The committee will impress to the resident that the existing curb extension would remainin place as it enhances pedestrian safety in the area An option to remove some or partof the curb extension directly in front of the resident’s driveway would make it safer formovements onto Park Road but is open to other options from the resident

See Attachment A for the removal option of some of the curb extension

B. ID brought forward the idea of a ‘Speed Table’ installation at the crosswalk on ParkRoad at Somerset Drive as a couple of residents have commented on speeding issuesin the area. The committee discussed this option and noted that in their opinion thisdevice would reduce speed thru this section of Park Road however the noise andgeneral vehicle behaviour using these devices would make them unattractive to arearesidents.

C. The committee will defer in how best to engage public opinion on Traffic Calming issuesuntil the issue with the curb extension is resolved.

#125971v1Minutes 9 Mar 2015

- 112 -

AdjournmentThe meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.

Next Meeting

Nest meeting will be held on May 11, 2015 at 7:00 in the City Hall Rivers Room.

#125971v1

Minutes 9 Mar 2015- 113 -

BonsonRd

19455

.

::

1N3l/’HOVilV- 114 -

ATTACHMENT

Park Road Traffic SurveySurvey results

66 responses

March 27, 2015- April 16, 2015

01

V3YIZ9

What is the postal code at your primaryresidence?

Answered: 66 Skipped: 0

VY IBI

V3YIB2

V3Y 1B3

V3Y 1B4

V3Y tA9

V3Y 2M

V3Y 2A2

V3Y2EI

\13Y2E2

V3Y2E3

V3Y 2E4

#126640v1- 115 -

V3Y2L3

V3Y2C9

V3Y 255

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Answer Choices Responses

V3YIZ9 3.03% 2

V3Y 151 9.09% 6

V3Y 152 4.55% 3

V3YIB3 7.53% 5

V3YIB4 1.52% - 1

V3Y 1A9 9.09% 6

V3Y 2A1 1.52% 1

V3Y 2A2 4.55% 3

V3Y 2E1 6.06% 4

V3Y 2E2 3.03% 2

V3Y2E3 0.00% 0

V3Y2E4 1.52% 1

V3Y 2L3 3.03% 2

V3Y 2C9 6.06% 4

V3Y 255 1.52% 1

Other 37.88% 25

Total 66

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

#126640v1- 116 -

Q2

Do you feel the curb extensions installed atthe intersection of Park Road and Somerset

Drive have:Answered: 61 Skipped: 5

Increasedpedestrian...

Decreasedpedestrian...

Not changedpedestrian...

I---,c!

_

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 30% 90% 100%


Increased pedestrian safety

Decreased pedestrian safety

Not changed pedestrian safety

Total

54.10% 33

4.92% 3

40.98% 25

#126640v1- 117 -

Q3

If the curb extensions at this location wereremoved, do you feel that pedestrian safety

would be:Answered: 61 Skipped: S

Answer Choices

Increased

Decreased

Not changed

Total

Responses

636%

52.46%

40.96%

4

32

25

61

Increased

Decreased

Not changed

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% S0% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100%

#126640v1- 118 -

Q4

Do you feel there are other pedestriansafety concerns at this intersection?

Answered; 61 Skipped: 5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Total

Comments (32)

Q4 Comments Responses:

speeding behavior not slowed down by current calming extension

4/16/2015 12:42 PM

speeding vehicles

4/16/2015 12:25 PM

People driving way too fast and not looking out for pedestrians.

4/14/2015 9:09 AM

increase in traffic volume that park road is not designed for, and the narrow area at this intersection - havelarger vehicles using both lanes to corner

Yes


Yes 59.02%

No 40.98% JI

#126640v1- 119 -

4/13/2015 10:55AM

Crosswalk is on a corner, and three way intersection. If speed limit is properly followed, spottingpedestrians can be done. But as more traffic uses Park as a ‘short cut” to miss left hand light at Lougheedand Harris, speeds do seem to be increasing on Park. Most sub-division locals seem to purposely slowdown, but the tail gaters are increasing.

4/12/2015 4:31 PM

Some people still drive too fast through through this intersection.

4/12/2015 12:56 PM

Speed along the entirety of Park Road from Harris to Lougheed. The traffic calming addition on the westside of Park was poorly placed. Speeders drive so fast around the corner that a pedestrian entering thesidewalk from the north will see clear traffic but once entered into the sidewalk traffic rapidly approachesfrom the west. I think it would be worth a look at adding speed bumps to the entire route and/or addingmore traffic calming curb extensions. Note: I live on Park road but my postal code wasn’t listed in surveyoptions.

4/12/2015 6:59 AM

Traffic volume & speed

4/10/2015 11:08AM

The curb extensions seemed like a more expensive way of solving the problem. Speed bumps would becheaper and more effective and require less maintenance. Traffic speeders would soon realize it would notbe a good route to hurry through. This accomplishes 2 things: Less traffic and faster traffic staying onarterial routes, thus safer for pedestrians. The curbing has in my opinion, made it more hazardous for anyvehicle towing a trailer of any sort to navigate the corner in a safe manner due to such a pronouncednarrowing of the road. We are all trying to be more economical so should be looking at the safest and mostreasonable solution to the problem. If you add speed bumps to the existing curb extensions, it would be asafety hazard. The extensions would have to be removed and replaced with speed bumps. This wouldultimately save money in the long run as no grounds keeping or watering would need to be done.

4/8/2015 6:02 PM

Cars coming in either direction are driving too fast

4/7/2015 1:12 PM

It’s a pretty simple intersection. As a pedestrian, I actually feel more unsafe at this crossing due to thevehicles trying to ‘squeeze’ between the curb extensions; they’re not paying as much attention topedestrians as they should. I found it better BEFORE the extensions were put in. A pedestrian-controlledcrossing light would have been a superior fix to this problem (which didn’t really exist in the first place).

4/6/2015 5:03 PM

#126640v1- 120 -

use as a permanent parking by renal house 5 ,6,8 cars and trucks JPark Rd 19626/The area is verynarrows space when cars from Lougheed turn left to back to Highway with high speed. ONLY SOLUTIONIS NO PARKING 24 Hrs/day around 2 islands in this area. Drug dealers from the house 19626 will be cut ofand moved permanently out. For long term home owners is plenty of parking on each property andgarages.

4/5/2015 11:51 AM

As vehicles come off of Lougheed onto Park Rd, many tend to speed. The calming curbs at Park &Sommerset help somewhat but as quickly as a vehicles pass the curb the speeds again increase. I alsohave concerns about the increased vehicle volume over the 15 years I’ve lived here.

4/5/2015 11:32AM

People drive too fast.

4/3/2015 3:48 PM

Increased traffic going choosing Park Road instead of Lougheed highway--drivers using excessive speed inthis area--proximity of elementary school and field increases the risk to children and youths.

4/3/2015 10:14AM

speeding vehicles around Somerset.

4/1/2015 8:59 PM

Sheer volume of west-bound traffic, that now turns left off Lougheed Hwy at the turn signal, putspedestrians at risk. Some vehicles veer left onto Somerset, others will continue to the right on Park Road.Anyone in the crosswalk at the time, or about to step off into the crosswalk is left in a very vulnerableposition. Vehicles travelling too close together may not see the pedestrian in time, especially if they’rebriefly distracted by a vehicle turning left onto Somerset directly in front them.

4/1/2015 7:48 PM

Curb extensions have not slowed vehicle speed at this intersection. Additional measures should be taken toreduced speeding in this area.

4/1/2015 6:25 PM

speed

4/1/2015 6:25 PM

We live on Somerset drive and are afraid our children will be struck by a vehicle with the speedr in whichpeople drive. The view on Somerset at the ‘curve’ heading west on Somerset from Bonson is obstructed.Kids crossing the street on Somerset are unable to see vehicles approaching in advance of crossing thestreet. Once the vehicles are in view the kids must run to avoid being struck. This speed limit on this street

#126640v1- 121 -

should be recognized as a ‘school zone’ in our opinion or speed bumps on the street would assist inreducing vehicle speed.

4/1/2015 5:22 PM

Many drivers race through the curb extensions like Formula One drivers going through a chicane curve, it isa challenge to some. Also, drivers race through the stop sign at Somerset and Park at speeds of 15 km/h orbetter, not looking out for pedestrians. Their only concern is getting out to the Lougheed quickly. Yourreport indicates that there is no speeding problem here, and I would say your report is seriously flawed.

4/1/2015 4:11 PM

In spite of the extension, drivers continue to speed through the area. Speed bumps or anincreased policepresence are needed.

4/1/2015 1:11 PM

Problems with speeding traffic is the prime concern for pedestrian and vehicular safety and bump outs donothing for that, in fact it makes it less safe in some ways. Speed must be addressed, not just ‘sidewalkextensions’. Bump outs have also re-engineered a neighbour’s driveway to make it more hazardous forpedestrians, and certain for the owners of the home to exit safely to the street.

4/1/2015 11:55AM

The curb extensions are a little better as it is shorter distance to RUN across the street, when a speedingcar is coming!!!! I do know the neighbor backing onto EME has troubles backing out of his driveway as itwas made with a very awkward curve that backs right onto the speeding cars.The cars travel way to fastcoming around that corner and many times myself and my girls have ran very quickly as cars do not havetime to stop.... It is a school zone with alot of kids in the neighborhood and cars do not follow the speed limit,I feel large speed bumps going both ways would help alot. Cars travel like they are on the Lougheedfreeway!!! It is a matter of time before someone gets hurt....

4/1/2015 11:39AM

speeding cars don’t stop

4/1/2015 11:09AM

Cars still go very quickly and don’t always stop at the crosswalk - I would prefer reduced speed zonethrough the area (30 km/hr).

4/1/2015 10:22 AM

People see Park Road as a race track! No matter what they just speed. We need more than curbextensions to fix the issue.

4/1/2015 10:09 AM

#126640v1- 122 -

Vehicles still drive too fast.

4/1/2015 8:26 AM

Vehicles will still try to get around a vehicle that has stopped for a pedestrian or to turn onto Summerset

3/31/2015 8:12 PM

Traffic still gets around a vehicle that has stopped for a pedestrian or to turn left onto Summerset

3/31/2015 6:45 PM

lt’nuts to think that narrowing the road and putting the pedestrian out more in the roadway is safe. Truckshave a hard time coming around the curbs and go onto the curbs where the pedestrians are now.and itdoes not slow the traffic one bit just makes alot of confused drivers and drivers trying to wedge themselvesthrough

3/31/2015 2:50 PM

Visibility. Crosswalk is located on a bend in Park Rd and pedestrians wanting to cross are not always easyto see. Also drivers are busy negotiating medians and road bumps, on-coming vehicles, u-turning vehicles,& turning vehicles and may not be expecting pedestrians crossing too (not that they shouldn’t be)

3/31/2015 2:16 PM

#126640v1- 123 -

Q5

Are you concerned about vehicle speed onPark Road between Lougheed Highway and

Bonson Road?Answered: 58 Skipped; &

II,

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answer Choices

Yes

No

Total

Responses

86.21%

13.79%

So

B

58

#126640v1- 124 -

No

Total

Do you feel that traffic calming devicessuch as speed humps or speed tablesshould be considered on Park Road

between Lougheed Highway and BonsonRoad?

25.85% 15

58

Q6

Answered; 58 Skipped; 8

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Yes 74.14%

a —

60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

43

#126640v1- 125 -

Q7

Not Applicable

There are side effects to installing speedhumps or speed tables, such as noise whenvehicles cross them, or slower emergencyvehicle response times. Do you feel that

these effects are an acceptable tradeoff tosolving the speeding issue in the area?

Answered: 58 Skipped: &

Answer Choices

Yes

No

Not Applicable

Total

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Responses

68.97%

20.69%

1034%

40

12

6

58

YesI

#126640v1- 126 -

Q8

Do you have any other comments regardingspeed reduction on Park Road betweenLougheed Highway and Bonson Road?

Answered: 37 Skipped: 29

Q8 Responses:

Too many vehicles going through including trucks. At one time “Genstar’ had restrictions on truck traffic.Allowing more vehicles to make left turn off Lougheed (travelling west) and Harris Road would help. Usuallyonly average of 8 vehicles get through and backup is often double this number

4/16/2015 12:45 PM

More stop signs. Eliminate access to Harris Road via Park Road

4/16/2015 12:25 PM

Traffic is also an issue on Bonson in front of the school. Speed humps would be good there too.

4/14/2015 8:33 PM

Park Road not only has vehicle speed issues, but increase volumes of traffice, and the road (especially thatof the cul de sacs) are used as u-turns also being taken at high speeds, as signage for mall access is slimto none.

4/13/2015 10:58AM

A speed hump before Somerset & Park at entry to sub-division and another before Oak Terrace as Parkstraightens may help to slow traffic approaching cross walk

4/12/2015 4:37 PM

We should be talking about all of Park Rd. including where it curves by the apartments. Other than for thecurb on Park Rd.(east side) close to the Lougheed Hwy.there are no signs posting the speed limit.l thinkthere should be more signs posting a to be determined speed limit all the way down park Rd. Calmingmeasures/speed humps should be considered at all intersections and at the two limited vision corners.

4/12/2015 1.01 PM

Curb extension affects safety of cyclists because it is on a curve, at a left turn on to Somerset and narrowsstreet width with a large number of cars using Park as a commuter route.

#126640v1- 127 -

4/10/2015 11:15AM

See comments with question #4. We all want our city to look nice but we have to be mindful of costs for anychanges made. Don’t do the most expensive option for improvements. Think it through and use our taxmoney carefully just as we budget our household and living expenses carefully. We have entrusted you tomanage our money sensibly. I felt the fancy curb extensions were an unnecessary expense and hope thereare no more planned for installation. The round-abouts installed in the city are a good idea and work well.

4/8/20 15 6:06 PM

Question #7 is fear mongeñng- nothing is going to slow emergency vehicles enough to change theirresponse time significantly. You also can not reduce the speed of regular vehicles without also reducing thespeed of emergency vehicles. The other problem with the current curb extensions is that they are unsightlyweed beds. Pave them at the very least instead of putting in dying plants that require maintenance (butdon’t receive enough of it).

4/6/20 15 5:15 PM

I feel that a huge waste of money has been made with the work previously done at this location and othersSpeed bumps would have been more efficient at much less cost.

4/6/20 15 12.43 PM

speed humps is excellent idea - fire truck will be block by parking vehicles in very effected way. Parkingaggressive offences in this area create by drivers shopping for drags ,blocking driveway, curbs and narrowcorners.

4/5/2015 12:08 PM

The calming curbs at Park & Sommerset have increased predestrian safety SOMEWHAT. That was not anoption on this survey. It was forced choice: yes or no. I am not sure how helpful it is to think in suchabsolutes!

4/5/2015 11:36AM

Perhaps more enforcement of speed limits along with electronic signs that display vehicle speed as areminder to drivers to slow down.

4/3/20 15 3:52 PM

Police presence occasionally. People who live on this street should realize that traffic will increase due tocommunity growth. Very few people use this road as a short cut.

4/3/2015 11:09AM

Add signs that say local traffic only and no U-turn at the Park and Lougheed intersection (Westbound onLougheed).

#126640v1- 128 -

4/3/2015 10:15AM

I have an issue with Somerset and Maple, this crosswalk is used heavily by students and we have hadmore accidents on that corner and near the crosswalk. I would like to see a calming measure there as wellas people use Somerset to speed the other way around to Bonson.

4/1/20 15 9:01 PM

If vehicles were travelling at the proper speed through the area, increased noise levels caused by speedhumps would probably be minimal. Speed humps or speed tables are not the only traffic calmingmechanisms available. I’ve seen swaths of circular speed nodules implemented in North Vancouver nearGrand Boulevard and 16th which would offer much less hazardous impediment for traffic, but wouldcertainly bring drivers to attention.

4/1/2015 7:57PM

Curb extensions have not reduced traffic speed. When stopped to turn left on to Somerset, other vehiclesare passing on the right, swerving between the stopped vehicle and curb extension.

4/1/20 15 6:25 PM

The focus on speed in this school area should not be restricted to only Park road. We have a majorhighway one block from Somerset and often people speed from Lougheed to Somerset and onto Somersetdrive. The view of Somerset is restricted in the area asoociated to the curve located when heading westfrom Bonson on Somerset towards Park road. Speed bumps are needed are this street.

4/1/2015 5:26 PM

Signs mean nothing to some drivers. Speed tables and speed humps dramatically calm traffic that drivercannot avoid and should be used in this area. It is located on a 90 degree curve with another road(Somerset Drive) that form a tee junction. Park Road is protected by a stop sign on Somerset Dr that manydrivers ignore

4/1/2015 4:31 PM

I walk my kids to school everyday at intersection of park rd and bonson. I have almost been hit by a car atleast lx per month. People drive right through the stop sign as if there was not one there. and when they dostop, they can’t wait for me to cross before creeping up and around me walking. Its totally unsafe. a roundabout would be a good idea for this stop sign. my postal code is v3y 1a8 which was not on the list. I livebetween lougheed and park rd on bonson.

4/1/2015 4:24 PM

The Questionnaire is slanted to achieve the answers you want. In the course of a year, I can count on onehand the number of times fire trucks use Park Rd as a through road. Trucks and commercial vehicleshitting the speed tables will make a noise is silly, when we have the CPR running 18000 tons through PittMeadows at 50 mph, and dump trucks and semis banging across the Lougheed. Clearly you are trying tosave face and protect your own decision to race ahead with curb extensions without consulting the

#126640v1- 129 -

residents who have witnessed events for years. What a snow job! You know very well that the speed tablewould rectify both problems of speeding drivers and pedestrian safety.

4/1/2015 4:15 PM

speed limit sign is needed between Lougheed Highway and Bonson Road.

4/1/2015 2:11 PM

An issue for over 2 decades; traffic tables and humps are the only way to absolutely slow traffic on theapproach of the crosswalk on Park, as well as Somerset, and also Bonson & Park (major schoolcrosswalk). Bump outs have made it more hazarous for pedestrians and vehicles due to their design. The3OKmh advisory signs approaching the curve at Park are ignored, tables and humps would result in traffichaving to slow to this speed or a little less before coming to the crosswalk.

411/2015 11:55AM

I have been here l6years and have never seen police radar?? It would be a good place set it up away fromthe corner so people actually get a ticket!!!

4/1/2015 11:39AM

I disagree with speed bumps

4/1/2015 11:31 AM

First, I’ve lived here for 15 years and have never seen police radar. Second, Park Road has becomeLougheed Bypass. Harris left turn too short so drivers opt for Park Rd instead!

4/1/2015 11:13AM

The curb extensions have increased the risk to drivers as extra wide turns are necessary and it can bequite a tight squeeze when there are many vehicles in the area. I have very nearly been rear ended manytimes making a left turn onto Somerset from Park by speeding cars coming from Lougheed. When comingthe other direction and making a right hand turn off of Park onto Somerset the same problem presents,speeding cars and close calls with potential rear enders.

4/1/2015 11:05AM

I’d like to see speed reduction on Park Road past Bonson because drivers pick up speed on the stretchafter Bonson heading towards Harris. As a side note, many vehicles don’t stop at the four way stop on ParkRoad and Bonson. In fact, some cars accelerate when approaching the four way stop to beat other cars.

4/1/2015 10:40 AM

I would prefer reduced road speed (3Okm/hr) on the road to speed bumps

4/1/2015 10:24AM

#126640v1- 130 -

I use both the cross walk at park and Somerset; and Park and Bonson. Myself and my child have almostbeen hit by speeders, too many times to list. I know speed humps affect the buses and emergencyvehicles, but something has to be done. There is a large majority that don’t even bother to slow down orstop at the 4 way stop at Park and Bonson. This is a huge problem.

4/1/2015 10:12AM

It is not just this stretch of road speeding is a problem all along Park Rd!!!! There are people who liveon the street who speed up and down the street I have and will put in complaints because it makes thestreet dangerous. Not just for pedestrians, but trying to pull out of driveways is a nightmare sometimes.

4/1/2015 8:30 AM

yes traffic light at corner of Park Rd.and Bonson road

3/31/2015 8:28 PM

the curb extension cause difficulties for long vehicles or vehicles with trailer to turn from Park ontoSummerset when traveling east. A traffic circle would have been better.

3/31/2015 8:14 PM

Although we feel the curb extensions have helped to slow traffic we have always felt that a 3-way stopwould be better in order to bring traffic to a complete stop. Whenever there are delays west bound onLougheed Hwy, Park Rd is used as a short cut to Harris Rd. I still have close calls backing out of mydriveway whenever cars race around the corner west bound on Park Rd.

3/31/2015 7:17 PM

I believe that the current curb extension hinders the ability for long vehicles or vehicles with trailers to turnthe corner going east from Park to Summerset. A traffic circle would provide better flow and safety.

3/31/2015 6:48 PM

Although many drivers don’t stop at the stop sign at Park and Bonson, making the Somerset/Parkintersection a 3-way stop would go a long way to slowing the traffic along Park. Also putting a crosswalkacross Park at Oak Terrace would increase the visibility of pedestrians (because this is a straighter sectionof Park Rd) and hopefully give drivers a reason to slow down on this stretch).

3/31/2015 2:26 PM

#126640v1- 131 -

r9

How did you hear about this survey?Answered: 47 Skipped: 9

Email fromEdith McDerm..

Letter fromthe City

80% 90% 100%

Answer Choices Responses‘‘

Email from Edith McDermott Elementarj 40.43% 19

Letter from the City 83.83% 30

Total Respondents: 47

Comments (8)

Q9Responses:

notice on post box

4/14/2015 8:33 PM

Letter on mailboxes

4/14/2015 9:10 AM

on school’s website

4/12/2015 7:00 AM

Notice on mail boxes.

4/6/2015 5:19 PM

Tearing down what has been done just wastes more money.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

#126640v1- 132 -

4/6/2015 12:45 PM

my neighbour

4/1/2015 8:43 AM

Friend sent me the email

4/1/2015 8:30 AM

I also believe that speed bumps would be a good idea on Summerset as speeds are high there as well andit is often difficult to cross Summerset due to vehicles traveling at higher speeds

3/31/2015 8:17 PM

#126640v1- 133 -

Other Comments Submitted By E-mail:

completed the survey but wanted to contact you directly because I will be out of town on the day of theopen house concerning Park Road traffic.

I have lived for 15 years and during that time I have seen an incredible increase in traffic. First, the trafficcalming measures are of little help in slowing down speeders. Second, once they negotiate that curve theyspeed up even more. Third, in those 15 years I have never seen a police radar unit to verify what our entireneighbourhood experiences. Forth, Park Road has become the de facto Lougheed Bypass. This is becausethe left turn at Harris Road is backed up as a result of the short turn light. I know this intersection isProvincially controlled and I’m sure they would say it’s just not possible to make it a 2 lane left turn, so weon Park get hammered by traffic quantity, and far, far too much speeding!

Come by someday when the evening commuters are coming in waves. We’ve asked for speed slopes,which are not noisy, (not bumps) at Somerset and Bonson for years, but have continuously been ignored.

01/04/2015 11:30AM

I received your letter related to the Pedestrian & Cycling Master Plan yesterday. I was unable to retrieveyour survey using the search information u provided, so will complete the survey in person. In my opinion,the curb extensions at Park and Somerset and at 193 St/Park serve no useful purpose at all. The heaviestpedestrian traffic is at the corner of Park and Bonson and the “Edith McDermott School is a half block awayfrom this intersection. Every 2 minutes there are 8 -15 cars turning onto Park off Lougheed depending onthe volume waiting to turn. The majority of these motorists are travelling through our neighborhood toreach Harris Road. The behaviours of motorists is to speed down Park Rd. oblivious to current signage anresidents concerns. I have seen Community buses, police cars, municipal workers etc speed throughoften not even stopping at Bonson and Park. I have witnessed a small dog being run over and a youngchild almost hit. Driver’s behaviour’s are not about to change. The problem starts from 1 92A St/ Davisonright through to Park and Lougheed travelling west to east and conversely from Park/Lougheed to 192ASTDavison going from east to west. This is a 1 KM stretch of road we are concerned with not just the one blockyou referred to in your letter. Please take the time to drive through the area to familiarize yourself with theproblem. Your information will give you a better picture of our concerns than another survey. A few yearsago, we completed a petition signed by over 150 Somerset residents detailing our concerns. Most of us feelthat low riser speed bumps are a better solution, and New Westminister, Port Moody Coquitlam and manyother municipalities’ have determined them to be more effective. Hopefully, we can look forward to someaction in the near future before someone is seriously hurt. Yours truly, Mal hanczik ( 29 Year Somersetresident)

04/04/2015 8:43 AM

#126640v1- 134 -

ATTACHMENTCITY OFPitt MeadowsThe ?‘uI Place

Purpose:

Effective Date: October 2, 2007Reaffirmed Date: July 3, 2012

This policy has been enacted for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a consistant

procedure for traffic calming applications.

The intent of this procedure is to determine whether traffic calming implementations would

restore streets to their intended function by reducing vehicular speeds, discouraging through

traffic and minimizing conflicts between street users.

Application:

This policy is to be used for traffic calming requests on urban streets within the municipal

boundaries of the City of Pitt Meadows.

Policy:

I. A request for the implementation of traffic calming measures is to be made in writing tothe Operations and Development Services Department, Attention: Engineering and mustinclude a petition signed by at least 25% of the residents impacted by those measures. The

area of impact will be determined by the Engineering Department.

2. Traffic calming measures will generally only be considered for local roads. Collector

roads may be considered on a case by case basis and lanes may be eligible as a resident

funded initiative. Arterial roads will not be considered for traffic calming measures.

3. The traffic calming measures requested shall have no negative impact on adjacent streets.

City of Pitt Meadows

COUNCIL POLICY C029

Page I of 3#39681v2

Traffic Calming Policy

- 135 -

I’ CITY OFPitt MeadowsThe ?Z,t’zd Place

4. City Staff will investigate whether the traffic calming request satisfies the minimum scorebased on the criteria from the table below:

CRITERIA POINTS BASIS FOR POINT ASSIGNMENT

85” percentile1 traffic speeds more than 10 km/h above theSpeed 0 to 25posted limit (5 points for every km/h).

Volume 0 to 25 Average daily traffic volumes (5 points for every 1000 vehicles)

Total Points .

. 50 Need 25 or more points to be considered for Traffic CalmingPossible

5. When the minimum score is less than 25, traffic calming measures are deemedunwarranted and the request for traffic calming will be denied. A request for trafficcalming that scores less than 25 points may be considered again in two (2) years time atthe request of the residents from the impacted area.

6. When the score is 25 or more points, the resident(s) will be advised that in order tocontinue with the request, City Staff will circulate a survey to the residents directlyaffected. A minimum response of 50% + I ballot must be returned, of which at least 60%of the respondents must be in favor.

7. A traffic calming plan will be prepared by City staff when the survey response supportsthe traffic calming request. Traffic Calming measures must be consistent with theCanadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming as published by the TransportationAssociation of Canada (TAC) in cooperation with the Institute of TransportationEngineers (ITE).

8. All traffic calming requests will be ranked in accordance with their total points as outlinedin section 4 above (speed, volume) and other qualitative factors such as sensitive frontage(i.e. school zones), pedestrian generators (i.e. senior housing), sidewalks and impact onemergency services.

I Definition for 85th percentile = the speed at which 85% of the vehicles in the sample travel at or below thatspeed and 15% travel above.

City of Pitt MeadowsCOUNCIL POLICY C029

Page 2 of 3#39681v2

- 136 -

CITY OF

ri,Pitt MeadowsThe ?Z,zd Place

9. Highest ranking traffic calming requests will be forwarded to Council for consideraton

and funding allocation as part of the annual budget and business planning process.

10. Should Council approve funding for traffic calming, the plan may be implemented in order

of priority as part of the Capital program.

I I. Follow-up evaluations of the traffic calming plan will be undertaken by City Staff at six totwelve months after implementation. Traffic volumes, traffic speed and compliance withthe traffic calming devices will be monitored and a report analyzing the performance oftraffic calming plan will be forwarded to Council.

City of Pitt MeadowsCOUNCIL POLICY C029

Page 3 of 3

#39681v2

- 137 -

Documents

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION REPORTpittmeadows.ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?... · Somerset Drive, can also be driven by the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan which recommended