TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Adam Lindsay, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Sheila Thomas-Ambat, PE, CCM, CFM, Public Services Director
Brian McGill, PE, PTOE, Interim Assistant Public Services Director - Traffic Services
DATE: November 4, 2024
RE:
Title
Review the Residential Traffic Management Program
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
All
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal I: Be a safe and secure community.
Goal II: Be a responsive city government supporting a diverse and viable economy.
Goal III: Be invested in today and tomorrow.
Goal IV: Be a highly desirable place to live, work, and recreate.
Goal VI: Have a collaborative citizen and business engagement base.
Executive Summary:
This report and accompanying presentation is to provide recommendations for the signature collection process and thresholds. This information is based on a Peer Cities review and includes the following:
• Allowing HOA Boards to approve in place of the 70% signature threshold
• Changing the community engagement approach to a mailed ballot initiative
• Placing a 60 day deadline on ballots to be returned
• Institute a 1 year wait period on failed ballot requests
• Allow residents of the road receiving the request to approve the speed hump request regardless of the greater study area vote
We are also recommending that Radar Feedback Signs be permitted as a non-compliant option, funded by the community, and maintained by FayPD.
Background:
- 8/7/2023 - City Council requested staff review traffic calming measures outside of speed bumps at the conclusion of the City Council Work Session.
- 9/25/203 - Staff presented City Council with an administrative report on traffic calming measures at the City Council Regular Meeting. City Council moved to hear the Report as a presentation during a City Council Work Session.
- 11/6/2023 - Staff presented City Council with a presentation on traffic calming measures at the City Council Work Session. City Council directed staff to return with recommendations for an update to the Residential Traffic Management Program (RTMP).
- 6/24/2024 - Staff presented City Council with an administrative report providing responses to Council’s comments from the 11/6/2023 presentation at this City Council Regular Session. City Council moved to hear the Report as a presentation during a City Council Work Session.
- 10/07/2024 - Staff presented City Council with a presentation summarizing the administrative report from 6/24/2024. This presentation provided responses to questions asked by Council on 11/6/2023, as well as provided updated RTMP information.
The City’s Residential Traffic Management Program (RTMP) has a process that allows for citizens to request speed humps. This process requires a petition for successful implementation of speed humps. The signature collection process for these petitions currently lay with the contact person, the person who requested speed humps.
During the presentation on 10/07/2024, multiple questions were asked which will be addressed in this report, as well as through the accompanying presentation. It was also requested that staff review the current policy for signatures, and how to encourage utilization of the program to better facilitate the completion of speed hump requests.
As many are aware, the City has begun the Safe Streets and Roadways For All (SS4A) project, which is intended to provide recommendations for revisions to the RTMP. SS4A is discussed further at the end of this report.
What follows is staff’s understanding of Council’s comments from that work session and staff’s response, as well as recommended revisions to the RTMP.
Comment: What happened to the rubber type speed hump that went across the road that was cheaper than asphalt?
Response: Rubber speed humps are not a preferred option due to concerns with maintenance, durability, and liability. They do not last as long as asphalt speed humps, are prone to become damaged or damage the roads they’re installed on, and could fail and lead to debris being thrown into vehicles passing over them (such as anchor bolts).
Comment: When a new speed hump meets requirements, does it require Council authority to be installed, or can it be installed through administrative policy?
Response: As established in the RTMP, speed humps are installed through administrative policy.
Comment: When a community pays out of pocket [pursues non-compliant installation], would we bring those back to Council?
Response: No. As established in the RTMP, if a petition is successful through non-compliant installation and paid for by a community, it is administrative policy to install and action by Council is not required. Council action is required if a successful petition is submitted to Council and the community does not want to pay out of pocket.
Comment: Who does the SS4A survey, and does it include neighborhoods with one way-in/out?
Response: The City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan studied accessibility for one way-in/out neighborhoods. SS4A will not study accessibility, but instead studies and plans to address serious injury and fatal crashes. SS4A will include the consultant reviewing our RTMP, code of ordinances, and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Their review will include recommendations to address safety. SS4A will not study neighborhoods for traffic calming measures. SS4A will recommend roadway improvements, which may include traffic calming measures, to address serious injury and fatal crashes across the City. SS4A is discussed further at the end of this report
Comment: Is there any way for a neighborhood to be exempt from the petition signatures? Is that something SS4A could change?
Response: Under the current RTMP, there is no way to be exempt from the signature process. If SS4A recommends possible signature exemption as a best practice to be added to the RTMP, that recommendation would be presented to Council when SS4A concludes.
Comment: Are we partnering with the State and County for funding of SS4A?
Response: SS4A is City funded with a federal grant providing additional funding. NCDOT, the County, Fort Liberty, and County Schools are being contacted for involvement in the plan.
Comment: Why are speed humps the only option?
Response: Speed humps are one of the most cost-effective, and efficient approaches to reducing speeding. We are also reviewing and investigating speed cushion installation as a way to address emergency response concerns with speed humps.
Comment: Are there other alternatives given to communities besides a speed hump?
Response: No. Under the current RTMP, speed humps and stop signs are the only available options for request. If other mitigating factors exist, such as crashes, then engineering measures are recommended in place of speed humps, such as traffic circles.
Comment: How many speed humps have been installed this year?
Response: Six (6) this fiscal year, 14 this calendar year.
Comment: Is it renters or owners that must sign?
Response: Both can sign for the property, but owners override renters if signatures are disputed for the property.
Comment: Will SS4A coordinate with the Police Department on the number of speed tickets issued?
Response: The involvement of the Police Department and SS4A has not been defined to that level of specificity yet, but the Police Department are included on the project and stakeholder teams for the project.
Safe Streets and Roadways For All (SS4A): The City has initiated the SS4A project which is intended to address locations with a history of serious and fatal crashes. As part of this project, we are requiring the consultant to conduct a peer review of the City’s RTMP against similar-sized Cities neighborhood traffic calming and speed reduction programs. The consultant will recommend improvements to the City RTMP based on the results of the peer review, their knowledge of industry best practices, and their knowledge of traffic calming measures. Their recommendations will include proposed thresholds for any new countermeasures. The new countermeasures can include, but are not limited to, the traffic calming measures that were previously presented to City Council in prior administrative reports and presentations. SS4A also includes the consultant assessing current City standards, guidelines, and plans, including the UDO and City Code of Ordinances, for opportunities to prioritize where safety can be addressed to reduce the occurrence of serious and fatal crashes. Staff recommend that revisions to the RTMP data-driven thresholds be deferred until completion and adoption of the SS4A recommendations. The tentative schedule for SS4A completion is summer/fall of 2025.
Speed Cushions: While SS4A progresses, staff are reviewing speed cushion implementation to address emergency response concerns with regards to speed humps. Speed cushions are essentially speed humps with channels or slots in the hump that are wide enough for a fire engine to travel across the traffic calming measure without slowing down. Our review includes coordination with other departments, pilot demonstration locations, and the method for installing these measures.
Signature Process Revisions: Fayetteville currently requires a 70% approval from the study area, and 100% approval from adjacent property owners for a speed hump request to be successful. Revisions to the signature thresholds are provided in the presentation and are based on a Peer Cities review conducted by staff. The signature process revision recommendations include the following:
• Allowing HOA Boards to approve in place of the 70% signature threshold
• Changing the community engagement approach to a mailed ballot initiative
• Placing a 60 day deadline on ballots to be returned
• Institute a 1 year wait period on failed ballot requests
• Allow residents of the road receiving the request to approve the speed hump request regardless of the greater study area vote
Additional RTMP Revisions: Based on coordination with FayPD, establish a policy for communities to install Radar Feedback Signs through a non-compliant request process. This process would have the community purchase the Radar Feedback Sign, and maintenance and monitoring of the sign would be performed by FayPD.
Issues/Analysis:
The City’s current RTMP defines the signature collection process for requests. Peer City reviews were conducted and revisions to the signature collection process and thresholds are proposed. Radar Feedback Signs are also considered for adoption in the RTMP as a non-compliant option. The project “Safe Streets and Roadways For All” (SS4A) has begun and will include RTMP recommendations upon completion.
Budget Impact:
N/A
Options:
Option 1 - Revise the RTMP to adopt a ballot process signature collection process through mailers as outlined in the presentation and allow HOA boards to approve in place of 70% signature thresholds.
Option 2 - Send back to staff with direction.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommend option 1, revise the RTMP to adopt a signature collection process through mailers as outlined in the presentation and allow HOA boards to approve in place of 70% signature thresholds.
Attachments:
RTMP-SpeedHump
RTMP-MultiWayStop
DRAFT Speed Hump Request Summary Workflow
RTMP_Presentation_20241104