Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project

TASK FORCE MEETING: PILOT PROGRAM PROPOSALS 01/26/00

PAGE 1

INTRODUCTION:The individual pilot programs are test cases to be used to evaluate specific design features and performance of measures. The intent is to use the pilot programs to help guide the development of typical treatments that will be part of an area-wide program.

Identifying Potential Pilot Programs

The criteria followed in selecting types and locations of pilot programs are set out in the table below:

Table 1: Criteria for identifying potential pilot programs

CriteriaDiscussion

  1. Type of measure is likely to be utilized in finalInitial investigation by the Project Team has identified those area-wide programmeasures likely to be most practical and implementable for Brooklyn.
  2. Applicability of measure to other locationsThe types of measures and locations should as far as possible be able to be utilized elsewhere, and thus their evaluation will provide useful guidance in development of a finalized area-wide program
  3. Limited physical scope (and hence constructionFunds for traffic calming implementation are allocated for the cost)finalized program; the cost of pilot test cases is to be minimized.
  4. Minimize impact on existing street infrastructurePilot programs should as far as possible avoid the need to eg. drainage, street lightingmodify existing street infrastructure and utility plant.
  5. Ability of pilot program to be evaluatedIt is preferable that the impacts of pilot programs are able to be quantified eg. speeds, public perception, safety record
  6. Pilot program has more than one traffic calmingMeasures will be most useful as pilot programs where they impactaddress a number of local issues eg. reduce speeds AND improve pedestrians ability to cross AND enhance local environment
  7. Compatibility with draft Street ManagementThe Pilot Programs should as far as possible be able to provide Frameworka means for evaluating and developing the proposed Street Management Framework
  8. Addresses issues raised by communityThe Pilot Programs should seek to address issues raised by the community eg. vehicle speeds, pedestrian crossing safety.

PAGE 2

Pilot Program Measures

Neck-down (Curb extension),
at intersection on a Community Street

The most appropriate locations are community streets with an objective to improve the ability of pedestrians to cross. Neck-downs can often be installed with little or no impact on capacity since the built-out sidewalk replaces roadspace taken up by parked vehicles.

Potential traffic calming impacts:

  • Vehicle channelization improves driver behavior at intersection, with lower turning speeds
  • Physical narrowing alerts drivers to pedestrian crossing location
  • Removes parked vehicles from space immediately adjacent to crosswalk (with improved visibility of and for pedestrians)
  • Discourages speed (by reducing road width 'visually')
  • Discourages large vehicles turning by making maneuver more difficult
  • Enhances pedestrian safety by reducing crossing distances
  • Increases pedestrian roadspace
  • Potential to improve local environment (beautification)
  • Rationalizes / improves parking operations by provision of 'sheltered' parking bays

Preferred location:
Court Street intersection with Carrol Street

This location has the following characteristics:

  • Typical community street conditions
  • No drainage modifications required
  • Near subway (therefore pedestrian crossing demand)
  • Near schools and park (therefore pedestrian crossing demand)
  • No impact on traffic capacity

Role as Pilot Program

  • Consistent with management framework objectives (especially for community streets)
  • Is potentially applicable at many community street locations
  • Should impact on both vehicular and pedestrian movement
  • To evaluate on truck movement / behavior
  • To evaluate impact on traffic operations and parking
  • To evaluate improvement in perception of local environment
  • To evaluate pedestrian behavior at neck-downs
  • To assist in development of 'typical' layout design for neck-downs

PAGE 3

General Impacts:

Business:

  • Minimal reduction in parking area (reduces No Standing from 40' to 25')
  • Improved ability of pedestrians to cross street
  • Improved general sidewalk environment

Parking:

  • Minimal reduction in parking area
  • No reduction in metered parking space
  • Improved segregation of parking lane from traffic lane

Traffic Capacity:

  • No impact on Court Street (2 traffic lanes remain in place)
  • No impact on Carroll Street (single traffic lane remains in place)

Emergency vehicles:Fire vehicles can turn within narrowed intersection

Maintenanceissues:

  • Snow clearance may be nominally affected at neck-down locations
  • Cleaning vehicles can negotiate curb taper at beginning of curb build-out

PAGE 4

Gateway treatment, at intersection of two different types of streets

The most appropriate locations are on the entry to community or living streets from travel streets, especially where it is perceived that vehicles are turning off the main route and short-cufting along side-streets OR where there is significant pedestrian movement across a side-street.

Potential traffic calming impacts:

  • Creates 'barrier' between travel streets or community and living streets
  • Makes drivers aware they are entering street with different character
  • Assist pedestrians to cross side road
  • Slow down vehicles entering side road
  • Discourage large vehicles turning by physical constraint (if neck-down included) - can emphasize with extra signage

Preferred locations (in no particular order):

  1. South Oxford Street (north) at Fulton Street
  2. Hicks Street (north) at Atlantic Avenue
  3. Bergen Street (west) at 4' Avenue

No drainage modifications required No impact on traffic capacity Geographical spread of locations

Role as Pilot Program

  • Consistent with management framework objectives (for differentiation between living, community and travel streets)
  • Is potentially applicable at many locations (especially where travel streets intersect with community or living streets)
  • Should impact on both vehicular and pedestrian movement
  • To evaluate impact on truck movement / behavior
  • To evaluate impact on parking
  • To evaluate impact of raised or enhanced crosswalk
  • To assist in development of 'typical' layout design for gateway teatments

General Impacts:

Business:

  • Minimal reduction in parking area on side streets
  • Improved ability of pedestrians to cross side street
  • Improved general sidewalk environment

Parking:

  • Loss of one parking space on side streets (Hicks, Bergen, Fulton)
  • Improved segregation of parking lane from traffic lane

Traffic Capacity: No impact

Transit: Transit buses can travel over crosswalk without passenger discomfort

Emergency vehicles: Fire vehicles can turn within narrowed intersection

Maintenanceissues:

  • Snow clearance not impacted on major streets
  • Cleaning vehicles can negotiate curb taper at beginning of curb build-out

PAGE 5

Signals: Alteration of signal timings for slower proceession

The most appropriate locations are on living or community streets where it is desired that vehicles travel more slowly.

Potential traffic calming impacts:

  • To reduce vehicle speed & improve safety
  • To improve perception of street environment for pedestrians (by reducing speeds)

Preferred location: De Kalb Avenue

  • Currently subject to relatively high speeds (Speed Observations: 85th percentile = 34mph, max. = 47mph)
  • Typical community street conditions

Role as Pilot Program

  • To evaluate impact on speeds of slower signal progression
  • To show that reduction in progression speed will not affect capacity

General Impacts:

Business: Improvement to general sidewalk environment due to reduced vehicle speeds

Parking: None

Traffic Capacity:

  • No impact (Assume that headway between vehicles remains as at present ie. seconds separating each vehicle)
  • No changes to green time for approaches

Emergency Vehicles: No impact

Maintenance issues: No impact

PAGE 6

Reallocation of roadspace
(Vehicle use to pedestrian use)

In some locations, it may be feasible to reduce the area of road allocated to vehicle use, without any impact on traffic capacity. For example, at some intersections, the number of departure lanes exceeds that needed to accommodate normal turning movements.

Location:

Pedestrian island improvement at Tillary Street / Adams Street intersection

Potential traffic calming impacts:

  • Improved pedestrian facilities without impacting on traffic capacity
  • Reduced crossing time and distance for pedestrians
  • Improved channelization of vehicles (to influence driver behavior)

Role as Pilot Program

To show that reallocation of roadspace (vehicle use to pedestrian use) can be achieved without negatively affecting operation of travel streets.

General Impacts:

Business: Localized improvement to pedestrian route between Brooklyn and Manhattan (over Brooklyn Bridge)

Parking:

  • Improved segregation of parking lane from traffic lane
  • Minor reduction in available parking area (Approx. 2 permit spaces)

Traffic Capacity:No impact

Emergency vehicles:No impact

Maintenance issues:

  • Snow clearance may be nominally affected at neck-down locations
  • Cleaning vehicles can negotiate all tapers at temporary curbs

PAGE 7

Access Restriction
(over limited number of blocks)

It is considered desirable to take advantage of any street closures that occur during the course of this Project to investigate the impact in terms of traffic flow levels and re-distribution of traffic.

Potential traffic calming impacts:

  • Redistribution of traffic volumes to appropriate routes / locations

Location:

Clinton Street closure - due to sewer replacement works (various locations south of Atlantic Avenue)

Role as Pilot Program

  • To assess impact of street closure on travel patterns and traffic flows
  • To evaluate changes in traffic volume on downstream length of closed street
  • To evaluate changes in traffic volume on adjacent streets

General Impacts:

  • Not applicable

PAGE 8

Measuring Inpact:

For each pilot program, monitoring of performance will be undertaken in order to assess the effectiveness of the measures.

  • Public feedback surveys
  • Speed surveys
  • Pedestrian crossing surveys
  • Vehicle count and classification surveys
  • Parking surveys
  • Accident records
  • Video recording of road operation
  • Ease of construction
  • Assessment of materials used
  • Cost of implementation
  • Impact on utilities
  • Impact on emergency services
categories [ ]