Traffic Calming Study. Town of Avon, Indiana. July 2017

Transcription

1 Traffic Calming Study Town of Avon, Indiana July 2017 Glenfield Subdivision GRW Engineers, Inc Waldemar Drive, Indianapolis, IN Telephone: 317/ / Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 1 of 64

2 Table of Contents TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY Town of Avon Glenfield Subdivision July 2017 Background and Introduction... 4 Purpose of Traffic Investigation... 4 Problems Identified by Neighborhood... 6 Figure 1: Location of Petitioners... 6 Existing Conditions... 7 Figure 2: Existing Traffic Control Devices... 8 Figure 3: Traffic Monitoring Locations... 9 Traffic Monitoring Table 1 - Traffic Data Summary Comments on Traffic Data Site Observations Table 2 - Site Observations Site Photographs Accident and Public Safety Analysis Figure 4. Five Year Accident Report Map Accident Analysis Assessment for Appropriate and Warranted Traffic Calming Measures Assessment Overview Table 3. Traffic Calming Criterion Assessment Public Safety Issues Comments on Appropriate Calming Measures to Consider Remediation Alternatives Considered Figure 5 Concept for Speed Humps on Collingwood Drive Figure 6 Concept for Curbed Refuge Island and Pedestrian Crosswalk Recommended Alternative and Estimated Cost Implementation Plan Directly Affected Area Figure 7: Directly Affected Area Neighborhood Survey Requirements Appendix A - Town of Avon Traffic Calming Policy Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 2 of 64

3 I PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY II IMPLEMENTATION TEAM Definition of Terms III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES IV REFERENCES Appendix B ITE Traffic Calming Measures Reference Traffic Calming Measures - Speed Hump Traffic Calming Measures - Center Island Narrowing Appendix C Neighborhood Petition Appendix D Traffic Data Appendix E Five Year Accident Data GRW file name and path: G:\4234-Avon PW\Dept Folders\Civil\Traffic Calming Reviews\Glenfield Sub- Division\Glenfield_Traffic_Calming_Report_Final_Draft docx Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 3 of 64

4 Background and Introduction Purpose of Traffic Investigation The Town of Avon administers a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy, included here as Appendix A. The policy, initially approved in 2006 and amended in 2013 and 2016, defines traffic calming by quoting the Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines: Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Proposed Recommended Practice: Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps (1997), Appendix B The strategic objectives stated in the Town s policy are: Reduce speeding Improve driver behavior, concentration, and awareness Improve safety for pedestrians, bicycled, children and motorists Reduce cut-through traffic Reduce stop sign running Reduce the need for frequent law enforcement Reduce accidents Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 4 of 64

5 The six-step process, simplified below, requires certain conditions to be met in order to proceed to the next step. The Glenfield neighborhood submitted a valid petition to the Town, prompting this Step 2 traffic investigation. The Town Traffic Calming Team is: Step 1 A valid petition request Step 2 A traffic investigation Step 3 Neighborhood meeting or mail survey Step 4 Town staff traffic calming team recommendations Step 5 Present recommendations to Town Council for potential action Step 6 Monitor performance of traffic calming for approximately one year Ryan Cannon, Public Works Director Sean Stoops, Avon Chief of Police Brian Nugent, Avon Assistant Chief of Police Public Works consultants, GRW and Traffic Engineering, Inc. GRW and Traffic Engineering, Inc. conducted a traffic investigation to measure and observe motorist, bicyclist, and pedestrian behavior and safety as well as to note the existing roadway characteristics. The investigation is intended to focus on the problems identified by the neighborhood petition letters, as well as problems observed during the course of the investigation. Traffic counts and speeds have been recorded. The study offers recommendations for consideration. In accordance with the Town s Traffic Calming policy, some or all of the suggestions may be implemented. Implementation is subject to a concurrence of a clear majority of the directly affected residents who return a completed survey form. Town staff may then approve the recommended items and bring the request to the Town Council for approval and funding of the plan. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 5 of 64

6 Problems Identified by Neighborhood Seven Glenfield homeowners submitted an undated petition to the Town identifying neighborhood traffic concerns and requesting that the Town of Avon study traffic in Glenfield Subdivision. The concerns cited are: Vehicles speeding through the corners in the subdivision o On Melbourne Lane, west of Glenfield Drive o On Westport Drive, west of Auckland Street o On Collingwood Drive, east of Auckland Street o One Collingwood Drive, just north of E County Road 200S Subdivision is connected to Dan Jones Road and the Avon High School. Thus, many vehicles use the subdivision as a shortcut to these areas. Figure 1 below shows the location of homeowners that signed the petition. Appendix C contains a copy of the petition. Figure 1: Location of Petitioners Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 6 of 64

7 Existing Conditions The first step of the traffic calming analysis is to document existing conditions characterizing the neighborhood relative to traffic controls, traffic volumes, measured speeds, casual violations, site conditions, and safety for non-motorized users, This is done under the following categories. Traffic Study Site Observations Site Photographs Accident Data Figure 2 shows the existing traffic control devices in the study area. Figure 3 shows the locations of traffic counters equipped with speed measuring installed for the study. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 7 of 64

8 Figure 2: Existing Traffic Control Devices Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 8 of 64

9 Figure 3: Traffic Monitoring Locations Monitoring Location B Monitoring Location D Monitoring Location A Monitoring Location C Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 9 of 64

10 Traffic Monitoring Traffic Engineering, Inc. collected traffic data to gather relevant information necessary to evaluate the petitioners concerns. Figure 3 Traffic Monitoring Locations shows where speed counters A, B, C and D were installed in Glenfield. The traffic study collected data in one-hour increments beginning on Tuesday, April 11, 2017, and ending on Friday, April 14, Table 1 summarizes the recorded speed and traffic volume information for both directions of travel at each location. Appendix D - Traffic Data contains the raw data collected. Table 1 - Traffic Data Summary Glenfield Subdivision Traffic Summary Table Study Period Start Study Period End at 11:00 am at 9:00 am Overall Data Location A Location B Location C Location D EB WB Both NB SB Both NB SB Both EB WB Both 85th Percentile Speed (mph) Mean Speed (mph) Pace Speed (mph) % in Pace % > 25 mph Avg Weekday Volume (vpd) % Total Traffic (Directional) Location A: Melbourne & Westport Curve - SW Location B: Westport & Sydney Curve - NW Location C: Collingwood, N of Melbourne - SE Location D: Collingwood & Sydney Curve NE Comments on Traffic Data The data collection for the north corners of Glenfield includes traffic statistics at locations B and D from Figure 3 Traffic Monitoring Locations. Location B: The 85th percentile speed was 21 mph. The average travel speed was 13 mph. The 10 mph pace speeds are mph. Approximately 12 vehicles or 1.9% of 604 vehicles traveling through this location during Tuesday-Friday were recorded traveling faster than 25 mph. Location D: The 85th percentile speed was 23 mph. The average travel speed was 17 mph. The 10 mph pace speeds are mph. Approximately 134 vehicles or 9.3% of 1,433 vehicles traveling through this location during Tuesday-Friday were recorded traveling faster than 25 mph. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 10 of 64

11 The data collection for the south corners of Glenfield subdivision includes traffic statistics at locations A and C from Figure 3 Traffic Monitoring Locations. Location A: The 85th percentile speed was 26 mph. The average travel speed was 20 mph. The 10 mph pace speeds are mph. Approximately 191 vehicles or 23.6% of 810 vehicles traveling through this location during Tuesday-Friday were recorded traveling faster than 25 mph. Location C: The 85th percentile speed was 28 mph. The average travel speed was 22 mph. The 10 mph pace speeds are mph. Approximately 793 vehicles or 37.8% of 2,098 vehicles traveling through this location during Tuesday-Friday were recorded traveling faster than 25 mph. Traffic Monitoring Locations B and D Speed criterion does not warrant calming as the 85 th percentile is below 30 mph. Approximately 3% of all traffic traveling through the north corners of the subdivision exceeded the speed limit of 25 mph during the monitoring period. This is not excessive. The road curvature and frequent on-street parking at these corners of the subdivision may restrict motorists from speeding through the area. Traffic Monitoring Location A Speed criterion does not warrant calming as the 85 th percentile is below 30 mph. 20% to 25% of all traffic at Location A exceeded the 25 mph speed limit during the monitoring period. Calming using a speed hump cannot be supported on the curve from Melbourne to Westport without a field survey to verify sight distances and is not recommended. Traffic Monitoring Location C Speed criterion does not warrant calming as the 85 th percentile is below 30 mph. 30% to 45% of all traffic at Location C exceeded the 25 mph speed limit during the monitoring period. Most notably for traffic calming, vehicles are likely entering the subdivision at a higher rate of speed from CR 200 S at Collingwood Drive. The large turning radius associated with the deceleration lane on 200 S may contribute to the excessive speed. A lack of regular on-street parking may contribute to driver behavior here. A speed-reducing device may be appropriate at Traffic Monitoring Location C, near the intersection of Melbourne Lane and Collingwood Drive. A speed hump may not be appropriate due to lack of visibility and reaction time to slow down from the vehicles entering Collingwood from CR 200 S. A painted pedestrian crosswalk and 2-foot curbed refuge island, narrowing Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 11 of 64

12 Collingwood Drive to 12 feet may be an appropriate method to consider. Traffic Monitoring Locations A, B, C, and D The relative balance of traffic directional volumes at each monitoring location does not support the claim of pass through traffic. Pedestrians and non-motorized users were present, though not excessive. Disregard of stop signs did not appear to be excessive. One occurrence was observed. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 12 of 64

13 Site Observations GRW observed neighborhood characteristics on Monday, April 24, 2017, from 3:30 to 4:00 PM. Figure 2 shows the existing traffic control devices in the subdivision. Speed limit signs are placed at each entry point to the subdivision, in accordance with the Town s policy. Twenty-five mph is the codified speed limit for all residential streets in Town, unless otherwise established by the Avon Town Council. The Town policy discourages intermediate speed limit signs along local streets to reduce sign clutter and minimize inventory. The site visit observed pedestrians, runners, and children playing in front yards and along sidewalks. Multiple cars parked on street on the north corners of the subdivision (Westport Drive and Collingwood Drive), east and west of Auckland Street. There were no parked cars observed at the south corners of the subdivision. All streets are 26-feet wide with roll curbs, a tree plot and four-foot sidewalks along both sides of the street, all in generally good condition. The Auckland Street and Sydney Lane intersection has existing pavement narrowing through the intersection on both streets. Collingwood Drive is narrower from Tasman Drive to CR 200 S than it is north of Tasman through the curve from Collingwood to Sydney Lane. The neighborhood streets do not have any pavement markings. All road grades are relatively flat, with no perceptible hills to obstruct site lines or cause vehicles to increase speed. The site visit noted vehicles traveling at higher rates of speed through the Collingwood Drive entry from County Road 200 S to westbound Melbourne Lane. A stop sign violation occurred as a vehicle exited from Melbourne Lane onto County Road 200 S. Traffic traveling through Westport Drive and Melbourne was light. Two vehicles appeared to be traveling at higher speed through south corner on Melbourne Lane, west of Glenfield Drive. Table 2 summarizes the site observations. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 13 of 64

14 Table 2 - Site Observations 2017 Avon Traffic Calming Program Field Observation Subdivision Name: Glenfield Subdivision Street Name: Melbourne Lane, Westport Drive, Sydney Lane, Collingwood Drive Observed by: Lynn Do Monday 04/24/2017 Time observed: Photos? Speed limit sign locations: Stop sign locations: Rolling stops? Parked car locations: 3:30-4:00 PM Yes Yes, See aerial Yes, See aerial No Yes, parked cars are observed mostly on the north side of neighborhood and some along Collingwood Drive. Roadway element dimensions Width: Pavement markings? Curb and gutters? Sidewalk widths: Grass buffer widths: Mountable curbs? Marked crossings? 26 ft. (curbs - face to face) Some narrowing on Collingwood, Sydney and Auckland. None Yes (both sides of road) 4 ft. (both side of road) Yes (both sides of road) Yes (both sides of road) No Non motorized traffic Location B & D 5-6 (runners, walkers & children are playing in front yard) Pedestrian volumes and patterns: Location A No presence of children or pedestrian were observed Bike/other volume and patterns: 0 In street travel: None Location C Observed joggers - highschoolers. Other Comments: Location A - Two cars observed traveling at a faster pace through Westport Drive/Melbourne Lane curve. Between Location A & C - Observed stop sign violation at E. Melbourne Lane exiting to S. Collingwood Drive and main road E CR 200S Location C - Observed higher speed from E CR 200S onto Collingwood and Melbourne Lane Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 14 of 64

15 Site Photographs Photo 1: Location B Sydney Dr. at Westport Dr. looking west toward curve (On-street parking) Photo 2: Location A - Westport Drive and Melbourne Lane looking north from curve Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 15 of 64

16 Photo 3: Location B - Sydney Lane and Westport Drive curve looking south (On-street parking and pedestrians) Photo 4: Location C Collingwood Drive and Melbourne Lane intersection looking north (On-street parking) Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 16 of 64

17 Photo 5 - Location C Collingwood Dr. and Melbourne Ln. intersection looking south to CR 200S Photo 6 - Location C CR 200 S to S. Collingwood Drive entrance looking north (Observed higher speed Collingwood to Melbourne Lane) Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 17 of 64

18 Photo 7 - Location C Collingwood Drive at CR 200 S looking south Photo 8 - Location C Collingwood Drive and Melbourne Lane intersection looking west (Observed stop sign violation from Melbourne Lane) Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 18 of 64

19 Photo 9 - Location D Collingwood Drive and Sydney Lane curve looking northwest (on-street parking) Photo 10 - Location D Sydney Lane at Collingwood Drive curve looking southeast (On-street parking) Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 19 of 64

20 Accident and Public Safety Analysis GRW extracted accident data from the ARIES traffic accident reporting system used by the Avon Police Department. Figure 4 shows accident data for the past 5 years in the study area. Figure 4. Five Year Accident Report Map Accident Analysis Four accidents have occurred on the study area streets in the past five years. 1. A vehicle ran off the road on Sydney Lane in the vicinity of the petitioners homes on A right turn accident due to failure to yield at Sydney Lane and Aukland Street on An unsafe backing accident at Tasman Drive and Westport on A vehicle ran off the road due to an animal or other object in the road at CR 200 S and Collingwood Drive on Neither aggressive driving, driver distraction nor excessive speed were cited as the cause of any accident. The neighborhood or reporting officer may be able to elaborate on accident #1 above. This accident may have contributed to the request for traffic calming. Accident data does not support traffic calming. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 20 of 64

21 Assessment for Appropriate and Warranted Traffic Calming Measures Assessment Overview Avon s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy states: Appropriate neighborhood traffic control devices should only be installed to address documented safety or traffic concerns supported by traffic investigations. These investigations will include an examination of the full array of potential actions beginning with a discussion with law enforcement officials concerning enforcement of existing controls. The Glenfield homeowner s petition cited the following concerns: Vehicles speeding through the corners in the subdivision o On Melbourne Lane, west of Glenfield Drive o On Westport Drive, west of Auckland Street o On Collingwood Drive, east of Auckland Street o On Collingwood Drive, just north of E County Road 200S Subdivision is connected to Dan Jones Road and the Avon High School. Thus, many vehicles use the subdivision as a shortcut to these areas. Table 3 Traffic Calming Criterion Assessment summarizes the items considered against the data collected and traffic calming criteria from the Town s policy. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 21 of 64

22 Table 3. Traffic Calming Criterion Assessment Glenfield Subdivision Item Condition Calming Criterion Meets [Reference] Criterion? Street Classification Local Local only [1] Yes Posted Speed Limit 25 mph Local streets only 25 mph Yes Traffic Volumes Location A 272 vpd Yes Location B 201 vpd < 2,000 vpd [1] Yes Location C 716 vpd Yes Location D 482 vpd Yes 85 th Percentile Traffic Speeds Location A Eastbound 26 mph No Westbound 26 mph No Both Directions 26 mph No Location B Northbound 21 mph No Southbound 20 mph No Both Directions 21 mph 30 mph [1] No Location C Northbound 27 mph No Southbound 29 mph No Both Directions 28 mph No Location D Eastbound 23 mph No Westbound 23 mph No Both Directions 23 mph No Speed Characteristics 10 mph pace speed Subjective - Do predominant Location A mph Yes speeds meet desired calming Location B mph Yes speed? Location C mph Yes Location D mph Yes Stop Sign Running Location A NA Subjective Safety Concern - No Location B NA Remove sign; replace sign or No Location C NA install calming measure [1] No Location D NA No Geometric Data Location C Existing Straignt Road [1] Yes Curve Locations A, B and D Existing No Accident History None in 5 years Engr. Judgement [1] No Public Safety Issue Speeding Safety Concern [1] Yes Pedestrian and nonmotorized users Alternatives Considered Location C Location C Minimal 14-ft Speed Humps Refuge island or lane narrowing pavement markings Subjective - High nonmotorized usage may warrant calming. Options [1] [1] Appendix A Town of Avon Traffic Calming Policy, Amended July 27, 2016 [2] Appendix B Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, ITE Proposed Recommended Practice, August 2007 No Yes, subject to site distance. Yes Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 22 of 64

23 Public Safety Issues Vehicular speeds measured in the area where the petitioners live in the northeast corner of the subdivision were not excessive. Speeds measured on Collingwood Drive do cause some concern, where traffic exceeded the posted 25 mph speed limit at rates of 31% norhtbound, 45% southbound and 38% combined (Table 1 on page 10 of this report). The 85 th percentile speed for northbound traffic on Collingwood Drive was 27 mph and the southbound traffic was 29 mph (Table 1 on page 10 of this report). Avon s policy states when the 85 th percentile exceeds 30 mph, calming is warranted. The 85 th percentile speed is commonly used by traffic engineers to set speed limits. Avon Police and Public Works officials do not believe increasing the speed limit based on traffic monitoring values is an acceptable resolution for neighborhoods. The posted speed will remain 25 mph. If calming is considered for the neighborhood, Colllingwood Drive seems the more appropriate location. Public safety associated with speeding, vehicles running stop signs and other potential safety issues will be dealt with by the Avon Police Department through selective enforcement. At unpredictable times during the week, officers will monitor the neighborhood and ticket offenders. Comments on Appropriate Calming Measures to Consider Each of the neighborhood s concerns plus issues discovered from the investigation will be addressed. Concerning speeding, the traffic investigation does not support calming measures under the 85 th percentile criterion. Measured 85 th percentile speeds were all below 30 mph, the threshold for considering calming. The predominant pace speeds measured were all below 30 mph. Pace speeds at the northwest curve were mph (Monitoring Location B - Westport and Sydney) and 17 to 26 mph at the northeast curve (Monitoring Location D - Sydney and Collingwood). Neither of these speed criteria warrant calming. The percent of traffic exceeding the posted 25 mph speed limit at the north curves, Locations D and B, were single digit minimal. The percent of traffic exceeding the posted 25 mph speed limit at the south monitoring locations was somewhat higher. Location A (Melbourne west of Glenfield) had 24% of vehicles exceeding 25 mph and at Location C (Collingwood) 38% of vehicles exceeded the speed limit. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 23 of 64

24 Speed humps on Collingwood Drive may be worth consideration. A south hump could be located between CR 200 S and Tasman Drive. A north hump could be located north of Crumwell Drive. Each of these locations presents site design issues. The conceptual locations considered two separate site restrictions. The south hump location is a challenge due to the offsets in the driveways on each side of the road. The north hump challenge is to provide adequate sight distance coming southbound out of the curve. The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) design manual lists the site distance for 25 mph design speed at 155 feet. In this case, there is nothing currently on the inside of the curve that would inhibit sight distance within the curve. On street parking impacts sight distance. The north conceptual location could work at less than 155 feet south of the curve based on current site conditions. Concerning cut-through traffic, the traffic investigation does not support calming measures. The relative balance between directional traffic is in the range for all locations monitored. Further lack of evidence of cut-through traffic can be deduced from the Appendix D raw data at the subdivision entrance on Collingwood Drive, Monitoring Location C. The raw traffic data shows a northbound afternoon peak from approximately 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm with no corresponding morning peak when school starts. Alternatively, if the Town decides to install traffic calming, it may be appropriate to consider lane narrowing at the subdivision entrance on Collingwood Drive at CR 200 S (near location C) as graphicly shown in Figure 6. Narrowing lane widths through the curve at Location A through striping likely would not produce meaningful results. Police Input The Avon Police Department has received communication from multiple residents in the neighborhood regarding speeding and other traffic related issues. Assistant Chief of Police, Brian Nugent has spoken with residents and directed the department to take steps guiding traffic enforcement through the patrol division. Further, the Police have deployed the radar trailer to the neighborhood which has been an effective short-term solution to citizen calls. In May of 2017, Assistant Chief Nugent received an from a resident who observed a recent increase in vehicle speed and / or traffic volume possibly resulting from an adjacent construction project. This was the latest communication from the neighborhood to the Police. Assistant Chief Nugent notes that the impact of selective traffic enforcement of the department is often a deterrent to dangerous driving, such as speeding. Consequently, this enforcement strategy can prove effective at reducing incidents of excessive speeding without resulting in a measurable impact to the statistical data of this study, such as the number of traffic stops made in the area. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 24 of 64

25 I would professionally support any measure taken that could enhance the safety of this neighborhood. Our agency will strive to provide increased patrols to the best of our ability with the resources we have available. Brian Nugent, Assistant Chief of Police Based on the information provided by the neighborhood, and the information gathered for this traffic calming study, it appears that the majority of speeding complaints are occurring around the northern portion of Collingwood Drive and Sydney Lane. The curbed refuge island and crosswalk markings at the intersection of CR 200 S and Collingwood Drive may not have an impact on the concerns highlighted by residents. Due to the discrepancy between the data collected and the location of the residents who filed the petition, it may be beneficial to gather input from more residents throughout the neighborhood to see if there is a large general consensus to consider possible traffic calming measures. If there is overwhelming support from residents on Collingwood Drive and Sydney Lane to implement speed humps in the northeast curve of the subdivision, significant support for traffic calming from those residents should be considered in making a final decision or recommendation. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 25 of 64

26 Remediation Alternatives Considered The following options are offered for consideration: 1. Speed hump on Collingwood Drive between CR 200 S and Tasman Drive. 2. Speed hump on Collingwood Drive north of Crumwell, subject to appropriate placement based on site distance and roadway geometry. 3. A curbed refuge island and pedestrial crosswalk on Collingwood Drive at CR 200 S. Figure 5 Concept for Speed Humps on Collingwood Drive Approximate locations of speed humps on Collingwood Drive. Note that the aerial shows an undeveloped lot across from the south hump location. Actual hump placement will be subject to the driveway of the now developed lot and other site conditions. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 26 of 64

27 Figure 6 Concept for Curbed Refuge Island and Pedestrian Crosswalk Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 27 of 64

28 Recommended Alternative and Estimated Cost Based on the traffic calming study, the team makes the following recommendations: 1. Install a speed hump and warning sign on Collingwood Drive at the south location between CR 200 S and Tasman Drive, subject to appropriate placement based on site conditions. a. Estimated Construction Cost = $2,000 Future considerations may include: 1. Install a second speed hump and warning signs on Collingwood Drive at the north location north of Crumwell Drive. 2. Install a curbed refuge island and pedestrian crosswalk on Collingwood Drive at the subdivision entrance. Implementation Plan If the Town chooses to move forward with calming measures in Glenfield, the installations can be conducted as part of the Town s maintenance improvement program, pending favorable approval by the residents located in the Directly Affected Area and the Avon Town Council. If speeding or other safety problems persist in this area, a follow up study may be conducted to determine if additional traffic calming measures are warranted. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 28 of 64

29 Directly Affected Area The residents that could be affected by the installation of traffic calming devices were included in the Directly Affected Area (DAA) shown on the aerial graphic in Figure 7. These residents will receive survey letters in the mail asking them to review this draft report and to give their feedback regarding the proposed recommendations. Figure 7: Directly Affected Area Neighborhood Survey Requirements If the Town chooses to move forward with calming measures in Glenfield, a survey letter will be sent by mail to all 12 residents in the Directly Affected Area asking them to review this draft report and to give their feedback regarding the proposed recommendations. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 29 of 64

30 Appendix A - Town of Avon Traffic Calming Policy Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 30 of 64

31 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY TOWN OF AVON Approved September 14, 2006 Amended July 11, 2013 Amended July 27, 2016 I PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY The purpose of this document is to set forth the recommended practices in planning, designing and constructing neighborhood traffic calming devices for existing streets in the Town of Avon. As defined by the subcommittee on Traffic Calming of the Institute of Transportation Engineers in 1997, Traffic Calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. The primary objective of traffic calming is to create safer roads and a better quality of life for the neighborhoods that we live in. The strategic objectives for the Town of Avon are: Reduce speeding Improve driver behavior, concentration, and awareness Improve safety for pedestrians, bicycles, children and motorists Reduce cut-through traffic Reduce stop sign running Reduce the need for frequent law enforcement Reduce accidents II IMPLEMENTATION TEAM Appropriate neighborhood traffic control devices should only be installed to address documented safety or traffic concerns supported by traffic investigations. These investigations will include an examination of the full array of potential actions beginning with a discussion with law enforcement officials concerning enforcement of existing controls. The Town s Public Works Department will use the following process in order to determine the need for traffic calming and implementation for each independent Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 31 of 64

32 neighborhood request. The Town may also initiate a traffic calming project if a known problem may be best addressed using a traffic calming solution. STEP 1: Initial request made by petition of at least seven (7) households, a Neighborhood Association, or the Town. If considered to be valid; STEP 2: Conduct traffic investigation. The following may be considered: Street classification (from Thoroughfare Plan) Traffic volumes (observed and/or counted) Traffic Speeds (observed and/or measured) Street width and geometry Document observed safety problems including pedestrian safety. Review accident history, if readily available Obtain input from Public Safety representatives (Police and Fire) Consider safety and traffic calming alternatives and costs Make recommendations for action or do nothing Prepare Implementation Plan Report STEP 3: Meet with Neighborhood Association and/or conduct mail survey of directly affected area households (to be determined by Town). If at least 75% of households in the directly affected area (or percentage to be determined acceptable by the Traffic Calming Team) are in favor of action, go to Step 4. If less than 75% of households in the directly affected area (or percentage to be determined acceptable by the Traffic Calming Team) are in favor of action, send written response to petitioners and/or neighborhood association stating no action will be taken at this time. A petition (to be provided by the Town) will be made available to the Neighborhood Association and/or households in the directly affected area for a follow-up survey. If at least 75% of households in the directly affected area indicate that they are in favor of implementing the proposed action, go to Step 4. STEP 4: Traffic Calming Team will meet to discuss findings and recommendations that create safer roads and a better quality of life for the neighborhoods. The Team may also prioritize projects in the recommendation to the Council in order to maximize Town resources. STEP 5: Traffic calming team will present recommendations to Town Council at public meeting. Notify Neighborhood Association, households in the Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 32 of 64

33 directly affected area, and/or petitioners of meeting agenda item. Town Council will vote to accept or reject recommendations. Send written notification of Town Council action to Neighborhood Association, households in the directly affected area, and/or petitioners. If action approved, go to Step 6. If not approved, revisit Step 2 or send written notification to petitioners, Neighborhood Association, and/or directly affected area households stating that no action will be taken at this time. A new petition for traffic calming implementation will not be considered for a period of at least one year from the date the request was denied by the Town Council. OPTIONAL STEP 6: Team may monitor performance of permanent safety improvement/ traffic calming device for a period of approximately one additional year. If not working well, or causing other significant problems, the Traffic Calming Team will review the project and issue a recommendation to the Town Council as to whether or not the device should remain. Team shall notify directly affected area households of the recommendation prior to meeting with the Town Council.. Traffic Calming team will implement final determination of the Town Council. Revisit Step 2 or discontinue project. If working well, and not causing other significant problems, celebrate! Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 33 of 64

34 Definition of Terms Directly Affected Area Before any traffic calming devices can be installed, the Public Works Department will determine the geographic area directly affected by the proposed device. The criteria for selecting the Directly Affected Area will be set by the Public Works Department. Generally, the Directly Affected Area will consist of homes and businesses that do not have the option of avoiding the proposed device, or may be significantly affected by proposed changes. Traffic Calming Team The Traffic Calming Team consists of representatives from the Avon Police Department and Public Works Department. The goal of the Team is to review the requests and issue recommendations that create safer roads and a better quality of life for the neighborhoods to the Town Council. Street Classification Local neighborhood streets only shall be considered for neighborhood traffic calming device applications. The streets under consideration for traffic calming devices should be residential in nature. Traffic Volumes Typically, neighborhood traffic calming devices should be installed on streets with less than 2,000 vehicles per day. All local residential streets in Avon should meet this criteria. Traffic Speeds Neighborhood traffic calming devices should generally be installed on streets where the 85 th percentile speed is 30 mph or greater or where the traffic calming team has determined that safety problems exist. Speed measurements using radar or machine tube counters may be obtained. Stop Sign Running Stop sign running is a safety concern that may be addressed by increased law enforcement, removal of the stop sign, or removal and replacement of a stop sign with another traffic control/ traffic calming device. Geometric Data Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 34 of 64

35 Neighborhood traffic calming devices should normally be used on streets with no more than two travel lanes. The location of a traffic calming devise should be carefully considered. Generally, straight tangent sections of roads are the best locations for traffic calming devices such as speed humps. Accident History Using engineering judgementit will be determined if the installation of traffic calming devices will result in a situation less safe than the original condition. Three-year accident history, when readily available, may be reviewed to assist in identifying any safety problems. Public Safety Input Public Safety agencies (Police and Fire) will be contacted to determine if services for emergency vehicles will be significantly affected by the proposed changes. Alternative Traffic Calming Measures Following is a list of alternative measures that should be considered and discussed with the petitioners. A description of these alternatives, which describes the measures, conditions, and circumstances for their use, is located in the next section. Thoroughfare Street Improvements/ Improved Signal Progression Speed Humps and Raised Intersections Pedestrian Crossings and Refuge Islands Street and Lane Narrowing using Pavement Markings Curb Radius Reduction Chicanes Traffic Circles/Roundabout Added bike lanes Rumble Strips Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 35 of 64

36 Evaluation Report An evaluation of project effectiveness may be conducted within one year after implementation. At a minimum, speeds, accidents, and traffic volumes may be reviewed. The findings and recommendations should be documented in writing. III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES Thoroughfare Street Improvement and Improved Signal Progression Vehicles may travel through neighborhoods because thoroughfare streets are over capacity, traffic signals are not synchronized or other progression inefficiencies exist. Widening collector or arterial streets to add left turn lanes or additional through lanes or installing or synchronizing a signal system may improve vehicle safety and efficiency, and may reduce cut through traffic in neighborhoods. The Public Works Department may conduct an investigation to establish potential improvements to the existing system if observed deficiencies exist. Speed Humps and Raised Intersections Speed humps and changes in grade at intersections can reduce vehicle speeds on local streets. The speed hump, speed table or raised intersection can be a raised area, constructed to Town Standards, extending transversely across the street from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. For local streets, speed humps typically are constructed with a longitudinal length of 14 feet. If speed tables are determined to be appropriate for neighborhood collector streets, they shall be constructed with a longitudinal length of 22 feet. These longer raised areas may also be considered on local service streets that serve as primary emergency response routes. Other criteria to be applied prior to installation of speed humps, speed tables and raised intersections include: Signing/Marking: Speed humps are required to be signed with a combination of signs and pavement marking to warn motorists and bicyclists of their presence. Traffic Safety and Diversion: Any use of speed humps must take into consideration the impact the installation will have on long-wheel-based vehicles (fire apparatus, ambulances, snow plows and garbage trucks) and the potential to divert traffic to other adjacent streets. Speed humps should only be installed to address documented safety problems or traffic concerns supported by a traffic investigation. Street Width: Speed humps should be used on streets with no more than two travel lanes. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 36 of 64

37 Street Grade: Speed humps should only be considered on streets with grades of 3% or less approaching the hump. Street Alignment: Speed humps should not be placed within severe horizontal curves or vertical curves (hills and valleys) that might result in substantial horizontal or vertical forces on a vehicle traversing the hump. Humps should be avoided within horizontal curves of less than 300 feet centerline radius and on vertical curves (hills/dips) with less than the minimum safe stopping sight distance. If possible, humps should be located on straight (tangent) sections of road rather than curve sections. Sight Distance: Speed humps should generally be installed only where the minimum safe stopping sight distance (as defined in AASHTO s A Policy on Geometric Design of Streets or INDOT s Design Manual) can be provided. Traffic Speeds: Speed humps should generally be installed only on streets where the posted or prima facie speed limit is 30 mph or less. Speed humps are not generally recommended, but could be considered on streets where the 85th percentile speed is in excess of 40 mph. Traffic Volumes: Speed humps should typically be installed only on streets with 2,000 vehicles per day or less. If considered for streets with higher volume, their use should receive special evaluation. Pedestrian Refuge Island Pedestrian refuge islands in the middle of the street provide a safe haven for pedestrians to cross the street. If placed at an intersection, the island will function as a diverter to restrict through traffic and reduce vehicle speeds. Some parking removal may be required and some residents may be inconvenienced. The median should be aesthetically pleasing. Street and Lane Narrowing/ Choker Motorists tend to drive at speeds they consider safe and reasonable and tend to drive more slowly on narrower roads and traffic lanes than wider ones. Reducing road widths by widening boulevards or sidewalks intermittently or introducing medians, striping for parking, shoulders or bike lanes or installation of Neck-downs can reduce traffic speeds. Road narrowing has the added advantage of reducing the expanse of road to be crossed by pedestrians, thus reducing pedestrian crossing time. Other criteria to be applied and considered prior to street narrowing include: Bicycle Accommodations: On local streets designated as a bike route or serving a significant volume of bicycle traffic, a sufficiently wide bicycle lane Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 37 of 64

38 should be provided through the narrowed area. Where traffic and/or bicycle volumes are sufficiently low, exclusive bicycle lanes may not be required. Snow Removal: The pavement width of streets shall not be narrowed to a point where it becomes an impediment to snow removal. Parking Restrictions: In most cases on local access streets, street narrowing will require the prohibition of parking at all times along the street curb the full length of the narrowed section plus 20 feet. Refer to the Town of Avon Street Section Standards for parking prohibitions. Landscaping: Median landscaping can be selected by neighborhood associations from an approved landscaping materials list provided by the Town. Landscaping will be provided and installed by the Town and will be maintained by the neighborhood association or landscape volunteer. If the landscaping is not maintained, the median will be seeded with grass. Median Width/Lane Width: Travel lanes should not be narrowed to a width less than 10 feet, exclusive of gutter. Bicycle lanes where required shall be four feet wide exclusive of gutter, unless the gutter is poured integral to the bicycle lane, in which case the bicycle lane will be five feet wide. If parking is allowed, the parking and bicycle lane combination shall be a minimum of 13 feet. Curb Radius Reductions/ Curb Extensions The reduction of intersection curb radii is intended to slow turning vehicles and reduce pedestrian crossing path. The radius should accommodate a passenger vehicle. Usually a 10 to 20 foot radius will be required. Primary application is for local streets only. Curb extensions (or bump outs) are used at intersections to slow turning vehicles, reduce the length of crosswalks, and to slow the speed of through traffic. Added landscaping, which should not obscure necessary intersection sight distance, can also help to slow traffic by calling attention to the existing intersection. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 38 of 64

39 Chicanes Chicanes are a form of curb extension built at a 45-degree angle that alternate from one side of the street to the other. They will effectively reduce speed and decrease traffic volumes in the neighborhood. Chicanes can result in additional challenges for snow removal activities, especially if they are covered with snow. Traffic Circles Traffic circles are circles of varying diameter formed by curbs. Motorists must drive around the circle, or in the case of longer vehicles, drivers may drive slowly onto and over a mountable concrete curb forming the circle. Traffic circles reduce motor vehicle speeds through the intersections, depending on current intersection controls in place. A Design Plan must be prepared based on a field survey and certified engineer s drawing. Other criteria to be applied and considered prior to installation include: Design Considerations: For each intersection the size of the circle will vary depending on the circumstances for that specific intersection. In general, the size of the circle will be determined by the geometry of the intersection. Where intersecting streets differ significantly in width, it may be more appropriate to design an elongated "circle" using half circles with tangent sections between them. Smaller circles will be constructed on a case-bycase basis. Normally the circle will be located as close to the middle of the intersection as practical. Under special circumstances, such as being on a Fire Department response route, bus route or due to snow removal accommodations, the size and/or location of the circle will be adjusted to more appropriately meet these special circumstances. Design Considerations for "T" Intersections: For "T" type intersections, all of the above design considerations apply. In addition, curb extensions (or curb bulbs) may be included along the top of the "T" at the entrance and exit to the intersection. Signage: Appropriate signage for traffic circles will be determined by the Public Works Manager and may vary based on the location of the circle. Channelization: Where curbs do not exist on the corner radii, painted barrier lines, defining the corners, should be installed. Yellow retro-reflective lane line markers shall be placed on top of the circle at its outer edge. Refer to the most recent Town of Avon Standard Detail Sheets. Parking Removal: Normally, parking will not be prohibited in the vicinity of the circle beyond that which is prohibited by the Town, ie, "within the intersection" or "within 20 feet of a crosswalk area". However, where special Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 39 of 64

40 circumstances dictate, such as where the circle is on a response route for the Fire Department or to accommodate snow removal, or in an area where there is an unusually high use by trucks, additional parking may be prohibited as needed. Sign Removal: At intersections where circles are to be installed, any previous right-of-way controls may be removed at the time of circle construction completion. However, where special circumstances dictate, the existing traffic control may remain in place or be otherwise modified at the direction of the Public Works Manager. Landscaping: Landscaping will be selected by the affected Neighborhood Association from an approved landscaping materials list provided by the Town. Landscaping will be provided and installed by the Town and will be maintained by the Neighborhood Association. If the landscaping is not maintained, the traffic circle will be seeded with grass. Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 40 of 64

41 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES Calming Alternative Volume Reductio n Speed Reductio n Noise & Pollution Safety Access Restricti on Emergenc y Vehicle Maintenan ce Problems Level of Violatio n Cost Rumble Strips/ Surface Changes Speed Humps/ Raised Intersections Pedestrian Refuge Islands Street and Lane Narrowing Curb Radius Reduction/ Extension Possible Possible Increase Improved None Possible Likely No Change No Docum. Problems Possible Likely Decrease Improved None Restricts Through Moveme nt Possible Likely Decrease Improved None Possible Likely Chicanes Possible Likely Traffic Circles Possible Minor Chokers Possible Likely Arterial Street Improvement s Possible Minor No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change Improved Improved No Docum. Problems Improved for Pedestrian s Unclear None None None None None No Problems Minor Constraint No Problems Minor Constraint Minor Constraint Minor Constraint Some Constraint Minor Constraint No Problems Street Cleaning Street Cleaning Trucks Can Hit Curbs None None None Vandalism Trucks Can Hit Curbs N/A N/A Low N/A Low Low Low N/A Low Low - Moderat e Low Moderat e Low Moderat e Low Moderat e Moderat e Moderat e Moderat e None N/A Varies Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 41 of 64

42 IV REFERENCES 1. Indianapolis Department of Public Works, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Recommended Practices, City of Bloomington, Indiana, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Calming for Communities, 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Calming, State of the Practice, prepared by Reid Ewing, August, City of Seattle, Washington, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, 6. City of Portland, Oregon, Traffic Calming Programs, 7. ITE Journal, Traffic Calming Design Standards for New Residential Streets: A Proactive Approach, prepared by Joseph E. Womble and W. Martin Bretherton, Jr., March Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 42 of 64

43 APPENDIX Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 43 of 64

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51 Appendix B ITE Traffic Calming Measures Reference Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 44 of 64

52 Traffic Calming Measures - Speed Hump Description: rounded raised areas of pavement typically 12 to 14 feet in length often placed in a series (typically spaced 300 to 600 feet apart) sometimes called road humps or undulations Applications: residential streets not typically used on major roads, bus routes, or primary emergency response routes midblock placement, not at an intersection not on grades greater than 8 percent work well with curb extensions 1627 I ("Eye") Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC USA Phone: Fax: Send comments to: ite_staff@ite.org SPEED HUMP SPEED TABLE RAISED INTERSECTION CLOSURE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLE CHICANE CHOKER CENTER ISLAND NARROWING Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 45 of 64

53 Design/Installation Issues: typically 12 to 14 feet in length; other lengths (10, 22, and 30 feet) reported in practice in U.S. speed hump shapes include parabolic, circular, and sinusoidal hump heights range between 3 and 4 inches with trend toward 3-3 ½ inches maximum difficult to construct precisely; may need to specify a construction tolerance (e.g. ± 1/8 inch) on height often have signage (advance warning sign before first hump in series and warning sign or object marker at hump) typically have pavement marking (zigzag, shark's tooth, chevron, zebra) taper edge near curb to allow gap for drainage some have speed advisories bicyclists prefer that it not cover or cross a bike lane Potential Impacts: no effect on non-emergency access speeds determined by height and spacing; speeds between humps have been observed to be reduced between 20 and 25 percent on average based on a limited sample of sites, typical crossing speeds (85th percentile) of 19 mph have been measured for 3½ inch high, 12 foot humps and of 21 mph for 3 inch high, 14 foot humps; speeds have been observed to rise to 27 mph within 200 feet downstream speeds typically increase approximately 0.5 mph midway between humps for each 100 feet of separation studies indicate that traffic volumes have been reduced on average by 18 percent depending on alternative routes available studies indicate that collisions have been reduced on average by 13 percent on treated streets (not adjusted for traffic diversion) most communities limit height to 3-3½ inches, partly because of harsh ride over 4-inch high humps possible increase in traffic noise from braking and acceleration of vehicles, particularly buses and trucks Emergency Response Issues: Concern over jarring of emergency rescue vehicles Approximate delay of between 3 and 5 seconds per hump for fire trucks and up to 10 seconds for ambulance with patient Typical Cost: Approximately $2,000 (1997 dollars) For additional detail, refer to ITE s Recommended Practice entitled Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 46 of 64

54 Humps. Visit the ITE Bookstore for more information about this publication. Institute of Transportation Engineers 1627 Eye Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC USA Telephone: Fax: Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 47 of 64

55 Traffic Calming Measures - Center Island Narrowing Description: raised islands located along the centerline of a street that narrow the travel lanes at that location sometimes called midblock medians, median slow points, or median chokers Applications: are often nicely landscaped to provide visual amenity and neighborhood identity can help pedestrianize streets by providing a midpoint refuge for pedestrians crossings sometimes used on wide streets to narrow travel lanes work well when combined with crosswalks Potential Impacts: may reduce parking and driveway access reduces pedestrian crossing width may visually enhance the street through landscaping but may also limit visibility of pedestrian crossings bicyclists prefer not to have the travel way narrowed into path of motor vehicles collision, speed and volume data are not available 1627 I ("Eye") Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC USA Phone: Fax: Send comments to: ite_staff@ite.org Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 48 of 64

56 Emergency Response Issues: preferred by fire department/emergency response agencies to most other traffic calming measures SPEED HUMP SPEED TABLE RAISED INTERSECTION CLOSURE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLE CHICANE CHOKER CENTER ISLAND NARROWING Typical Cost: reported costs range between $5,000 and $15,000 (1997 dollars) Institute of Transportation Engineers 1627 Eye Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC USA Telephone: Fax: Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 49 of 64

57 Appendix C Neighborhood Petition Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 50 of 64

58 Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 51 of 64

59 Appendix D Traffic Data Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 52 of 64

60 Glenfield Traffic Count Data Summary Location Counter Designation Description A Melbourne West of Glenfield B Westport West of Auckland C Collingwood N of E CR 200 S D Collingwood E of Auckland Monitoring Location B Monitoring Location D Monitoring Location A Monitoring Location C Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 53 of 64

61 G:\4234-Avon PW\Dept Folders\Civil\Traffic Calming Reviews\Glenfield Sub-Division\Data from Chet\Glenfield_Traffic_Count_Summary_Data2.xlsx Location A Cntr On Melbourne Ln West of Glenfield Dr Location B Cntr On Westport Dr West of Auckland St Location C Cntr On Collingwood Dr just North of E CR Location D Cntr On Collingwood Dr East of Auckland St Time EB WB Total Time SB NB Total Time NB SB Total Time WB EB Total 11:30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM /12/ /12/ /12/ /12/ :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM of 5

62 G:\4234-Avon PW\Dept Folders\Civil\Traffic Calming Reviews\Glenfield Sub-Division\Data from Chet\Glenfield_Traffic_Count_Summary_Data2.xlsx Location A Cntr On Melbourne Ln West of Glenfield Dr Location B Cntr On Westport Dr West of Auckland St Location C Cntr On Collingwood Dr just North of E CR Location D Cntr On Collingwood Dr East of Auckland St Time EB WB Total Time SB NB Total Time NB SB Total Time WB EB Total 4:00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM of 5

63 G:\4234-Avon PW\Dept Folders\Civil\Traffic Calming Reviews\Glenfield Sub-Division\Data from Chet\Glenfield_Traffic_Count_Summary_Data2.xlsx Location A Cntr On Melbourne Ln West of Glenfield Dr Location B Cntr On Westport Dr West of Auckland St Location C Cntr On Collingwood Dr just North of E CR Location D Cntr On Collingwood Dr East of Auckland St Time EB WB Total Time SB NB Total Time NB SB Total Time WB EB Total 8:30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM /13/ /13/ /13/ /13/ :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM of 5

64 G:\4234-Avon PW\Dept Folders\Civil\Traffic Calming Reviews\Glenfield Sub-Division\Data from Chet\Glenfield_Traffic_Count_Summary_Data2.xlsx Location A Cntr On Melbourne Ln West of Glenfield Dr Location B Cntr On Westport Dr West of Auckland St Location C Cntr On Collingwood Dr just North of E CR Location D Cntr On Collingwood Dr East of Auckland St Time EB WB Total Time SB NB Total Time NB SB Total Time WB EB Total 1:00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM :45 PM /14/ /14/ /14/ /14/ :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM of 5

65 G:\4234-Avon PW\Dept Folders\Civil\Traffic Calming Reviews\Glenfield Sub-Division\Data from Chet\Glenfield_Traffic_Count_Summary_Data2.xlsx Location A Cntr On Melbourne Ln West of Glenfield Dr Location B Cntr On Westport Dr West of Auckland St Location C Cntr On Collingwood Dr just North of E CR Location D Cntr On Collingwood Dr East of Auckland St Time EB WB Total Time SB NB Total Time NB SB Total Time WB EB Total 5:30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM :45 AM Total Vol Vol Per Day % Directiona 52% 48% 50% 50% 52% 48% 50% 50% Total Vol Vol Per Day % Directiona 51% 49% 48% 52% 53% 47% 48% 52% Upper Data is 11:30 AM (Day 1) to 11:30 AM (Day 3) Lower Date is 9:00 AM (Day 2) to 9:00 AM (Day 4) 5 of 5

66 Glenfield Speed Data Summary Location A Counter Melbourne West of Glenfield Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 55 of 64

67 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 1 EB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 7 MPH 20 MPH 25 MPH 29 MPH 19 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 48 Percent in Pace : 56.5% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 17 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 20.0%

68 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 2 EB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 12 MPH 23 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 21 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 99 Percent in Pace : 70.7% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 42 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 29.6%

69 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 3 EB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 9 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 98 Percent in Pace : 66.7% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 38 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 25.5%

70 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 4 EB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 10 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 28 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 35 Percent in Pace : 68.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 12 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 22.5% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 9 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 279 Percent in Pace : 66.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 108 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 25.4%

71 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 5 WB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 57 Percent in Pace : 62.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 24 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 25.8%

72 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 6 WB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 7 MPH 20 MPH 25 MPH 28 MPH 19 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 77 Percent in Pace : 55.8% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 30 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 21.4%

73 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 7 WB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 9 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 28 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 90 Percent in Pace : 65.7% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 28 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 20.8%

74 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 8 WB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 6 MPH 20 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 17 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 12 Percent in Pace : 57.1% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 2 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 9.5% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 21 MPH 26 MPH 28 MPH 19 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 234 Percent in Pace : 60.5% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 84 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 21.6%

75 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 9 EB, WB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 21 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 19 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 104 Percent in Pace : 59.1% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 40 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 23.0%

76 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 10 EB, WB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 174 Percent in Pace : 62.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 71 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 25.5%

77 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 11 EB, WB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 9 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 28 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 187 Percent in Pace : 65.8% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 66 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 23.2%

78 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 12 EB, WB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 21 MPH 25 MPH 28 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 45 Percent in Pace : 62.5% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 14 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 18.8% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 21 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 510 Percent in Pace : 63.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 191 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 23.6%

79 Glenfield Speed Data Summary Location B Counter Westport West of Auckland Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 57 of 64

80 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 1 SB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 11 MPH 19 MPH 21 MPH 12 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 34 Percent in Pace : 44.2% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 0.6%

81 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 2 SB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 21 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 42 Percent in Pace : 43.8% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1.0%

82 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 3 SB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 20 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 43 Percent in Pace : 42.2% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 2 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 2.5%

83 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 4 SB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 4 MPH 14 MPH 21 MPH 22 MPH 14 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 12 Percent in Pace : 50.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 0 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 0.0% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 20 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 129 Percent in Pace : 43.1% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 4 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1.3%

84 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 5 NB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 4 MPH 14 MPH 22 MPH 24 MPH 14 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 27 Percent in Pace : 45.8% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 2 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 4.2%

85 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 6 NB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 13 MPH 21 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 46 Percent in Pace : 45.5% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1.0%

86 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 7 NB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 4 MPH 13 MPH 21 MPH 24 MPH 14 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 52 Percent in Pace : 45.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 4 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 3.5%

87 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 8 NB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 21 MPH 22 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 14 Percent in Pace : 45.2% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 0 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 0.0% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 4 MPH 13 MPH 21 MPH 23 MPH 14 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 136 Percent in Pace : 44.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 8 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 2.5%

88 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 9 SB, NB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 20 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 59 Percent in Pace : 43.4% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 3 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 2.2%

89 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 10 SB, NB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 21 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 87 Percent in Pace : 44.2% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 2 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1.0%

90 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 11 SB, NB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 21 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 95 Percent in Pace : 44.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 6 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 3.0%

91 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 12 SB, NB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 4 MPH 13 MPH 21 MPH 22 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 26 Percent in Pace : 47.3% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 0 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 0.0% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 3 MPH 12 MPH 21 MPH 23 MPH 13 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 265 Percent in Pace : 43.9% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 12 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 1.9%

92 Glenfield Speed Data Summary Location C Counter Collingwood N of E County Road 200 S Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 59 of 64

93 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 1 NB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 22 MPH 27 MPH 29 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 197 Percent in Pace : 61.4% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 90 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 28.2%

94 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 2 NB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 13 MPH 23 MPH 27 MPH 30 MPH 22 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 269 Percent in Pace : 71.5% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 141 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 37.5%

95 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 3 NB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 8 MPH 22 MPH 26 MPH 29 MPH 20 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 224 Percent in Pace : 60.7% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 98 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 26.4%

96 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 4 NB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 11 MPH 22 MPH 27 MPH 31 MPH 22 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 27 Percent in Pace : 64.3% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 15 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 35.7% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 9 MPH 22 MPH 27 MPH 29 MPH 21 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 717 Percent in Pace : 64.7% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 344 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 31.0%

97 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 5 SB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 10 MPH 23 MPH 28 MPH 32 MPH 22 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 112 Percent in Pace : 62.2% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 73 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 40.6%

98 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 6 SB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 18 MPH 25 MPH 29 MPH 31 MPH 24 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 250 Percent in Pace : 73.3% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 174 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 50.9%

99 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 7 SB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 12 MPH 23 MPH 28 MPH 31 MPH 22 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 245 Percent in Pace : 68.4% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 146 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 40.9%

100 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 8 SB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 20 MPH 25 MPH 29 MPH 32 MPH 24 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 80 Percent in Pace : 72.1% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 56 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 50.5% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 14 MPH 24 MPH 29 MPH 31 MPH 23 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 687 Percent in Pace : 69.4% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 449 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 45.4%

101 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 9 NB, SB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 9 MPH 22 MPH 27 MPH 30 MPH 21 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 309 Percent in Pace : 61.7% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 164 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 32.6%

102 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 10 NB, SB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 15 MPH 24 MPH 28 MPH 31 MPH 23 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 519 Percent in Pace : 72.4% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 314 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 43.9%

103 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 11 NB, SB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 10 MPH 22 MPH 27 MPH 30 MPH 21 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 469 Percent in Pace : 64.5% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 244 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 33.6%

104 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 12 NB, SB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 16 MPH 24 MPH 29 MPH 32 MPH 24 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 107 Percent in Pace : 69.9% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 71 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 46.4% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 11 MPH 23 MPH 28 MPH 31 MPH 22 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 1404 Percent in Pace : 66.9% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 793 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 37.8%

105 Glenfield Speed Data Summary Location D Counter Collingwood E of Auckland Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 61 of 64

106 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 1 WB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 7 MPH 20 MPH 24 MPH 26 MPH 18 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 120 Percent in Pace : 60.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 21 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 10.6%

107 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 2 WB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 6 MPH 20 MPH 24 MPH 25 MPH 17 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 140 Percent in Pace : 58.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 23 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 9.6%

108 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 3 WB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 18 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 16 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 123 Percent in Pace : 52.1% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 16 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 6.8%

109 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 4 WB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 6 MPH 20 MPH 25 MPH 28 MPH 18 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 16 Percent in Pace : 50.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 5 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 15.6% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 6 MPH 20 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 17 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 399 Percent in Pace : 56.6% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 65 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 9.2%

110 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 5 EB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 6 MPH 20 MPH 24 MPH 25 MPH 18 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 85 Percent in Pace : 59.9% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 20 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 14.1%

111 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 6 EB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 17 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 16 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 121 Percent in Pace : 51.1% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 21 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 8.9%

112 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 7 EB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 18 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 17 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 138 Percent in Pace : 52.5% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 24 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 8.9%

113 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 8 EB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 4 MPH 16 MPH 23 MPH 24 MPH 16 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 44 Percent in Pace : 51.2% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 4 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 4.7% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 18 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 17 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 387 Percent in Pace : 53.2% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 68 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 9.4%

114 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 9 WB, EB Start Time Total 04/11/17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11: PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 6 MPH 20 MPH 24 MPH 26 MPH 18 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 204 Percent in Pace : 60.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 41 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 12.1%

115 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 10 WB, EB Start Time Total 04/12/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 19 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 17 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 262 Percent in Pace : 55.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 44 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 9.2%

116 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 11 WB, EB Start Time Total 04/13/ : : : : : : : : : : : PM : : : : : : : : : : : Total Daily 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 18 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 16 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 261 Percent in Pace : 52.3% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 40 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 7.9%

117 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Chet M. Skwarcan, PE Page 12 WB, EB Start Time Total 04/14/ : : : : : : : : : :00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total Daily 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 17 MPH 23 MPH 26 MPH 16 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 59 Percent in Pace : 50.0% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 9 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 7.6% Grand Total Overall 15th Percentile : 5 MPH 19 MPH 23 MPH 25 MPH 17 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed : MPH Number in Pace : 786 Percent in Pace : 54.8% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 134 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH : 9.3%

118 Appendix E Five Year Accident Data Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 63 of 64

119 Traffic Calming Study Glenfield Subdivision 64 of 64