TO: FROM: Chair and Members Engineering and Public Works Committee Mark Misko, C.E.T. Manager, Roads Maintenance and Construction DATE: March 23, 2016 SUBJECT: REPORT NO: Designation of a Community Safety Zone in Honey Harbour in the Township of Georgian Bay PW-3-2016-5 RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS Muskoka District Council adopted Policy PW-001-2008 (Community Safety Zones) on September 22, 2008 which outlines the process to establish Community Safety Zones on District roadways; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the request to implement a Community Safety Zone for the portions of Muskoka Road 5 (Honey Harbour Road) currently posted at 50 km/h BE DENIED. ORIGIN Correspondence in the form of Resolution C-185-2015 No. COW-74-2015-R was received from the Township of Georgian Bay requesting that the District of Muskoka implement a Community Safety Zone (CSZ) in Honey Harbour starting at the speed limit sign (50 km/h) and ending at the end of the District-owned portion. The resolution is attached as Appendix A. ANALYSIS In response to the above request, District staff initiated a CSZ warrant analysis as per District Policy and Procedure No. PW-001-2008 (Council approved September 22, 2008). The purpose of the policy is to establish warrants, or criteria, that must be met in order to establish a CSZ. The study area included the portion Muskoka Road 5 through the village of Honey Harbour as per the request. The length of the study area is 2.5 km and has a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. Upon completion of traffic counts, warrants were analyzed and it was determined that establishment of a CSZ was not justified as the Crash and Risk components of the warrant were not met. A copy of the CSZ analysis report has been included as Appendix B. Page 1
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS In light of the study area not meeting warrants for a CSZ, staff considered additional measures which could be implemented. Analysis of summer traffic patterns indicate an estimated 85 th percentile speed of 37 and 45 km/h for the two count locations as described in Appendix B. Based on these values, additional enforcement through the area is unlikely to result in significant behaviour patterns as most drivers are travelling below the posted speed limit. The area immediately east of the 50 km/h speed zone is currently posted at 60 km/h indicating that the 10 km/h speed transition is appropriate. In order to address this speed reduction and increase motorist awareness of the transition to 50 km/h, consideration could be given to installing flashing speed boards at this speed reduction point in order to better inform motorists of their speed as they enter this area. Solar powered options are available for this purpose, an example of which is shown below: FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Based on the current recommendation, there are no financial implications at this time. If a decision is made to pursue the additional consideration above, the estimated cost for installing the new speed sign is estimated to be under $5,000. If approved, all costs for this work would be borne by the Traffic program of the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget for Regulatory Signage improvements (01-2-314000-23350), which has an overall approved budget of $97,293. COMMUNICATIONS Notification of the decision will be sent to the Township of Georgian Bay. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Community Safety Zone request for Muskoka Road 5 supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka s Strategic Priorities: Page 2
4. Maintain a safe and reliable road and bridge system that supports the existing and future needs of Muskoka Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Mark Misko, C.E.T. Manager, Roads Maintenance and Construction Original signed by Fred W. Jahn, P.Eng. Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works Page 3
PW-3-2016-5 APPENDIX 'A' Page 4
Page 5
PW-3-2016-5 APPENDIX 'B' MUSKOKA ROAD 5 Township of Georgian Bay HONEY HARBOUR COMMUNITY SAFETY ZONE DESIGNATION - WARRANT ANALYSIS Thursday April 9 to Wednesday April 15, 2015 Count Date Prepared by The District Municipality of Muskoka Engineering and Public Works Department March 2, 2016 Page 6
Muskoka Road 5 Honey Harbour - Warrant Analysis February 2016 Intersection Location and Community Safety Zone Warrant Analysis Objectives The study section for the following community safety zone (CSZ) warrant analysis is located along Honey Harbour Road (MR5) the start of the 50 km/h portion of the roadway north westerly to the end of the District owned portion of MR5. The study length area is approximately 1.5km in length with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. There are two driving lanes throughout the length of the study area. The roadside environment consists of both rural and semiurban cross sections. The District Municipality of Muskoka (DMM) is undertaking a CSZ warrant analysis with the primary objective of determining if the designation of the study area below as a CSZ is justified or if alternative traffic improvements can be made. End of District MR5 Grocery/Hardware Store Public School Start of 50 km/h Section Honey Harbour 2 of 6 Page 7
Muskoka Road 5 Honey Harbour - Warrant Analysis February 2016 Methodology The CSZ warrant/justification methodology used is based on District Municipality of Muskoka Policy (effective September 22, 2008) and is attached as Appendix A. The following four warrants are applied in the analysis for a CSZ: Warrant 1 Designated Areas of Special Concern Warrant 2 Safety Warrant Warrant 3 Other Applicable Measures/Devices Warrant 4 OPP Approval For a CSZ designation to be justified, all four of the above warrants must be fulfilled. Data Collection Data collection consisted of a one week traffic count on between June 26 and July 6, 2015 (Friday to Monday). Vehicle counts were collected using pneumatic count tubes measuring both directions at two locations (immediately east of the Honey Harbour public school and just west of the hardware/grocery store). Analysis Collected data was downloaded for analysis for applicable warrants using TRAXPro traffic analysis software package which were calculated automatically, the results of which are discussed below. Analysis was also completed through site visits and analysis of historical study area conditions (i.e. accident history). The results of all warrant analyses are further discussed below. Warrant 1 Designated Areas of Special Concern Satisfied due to the fact that the subject area is adjacent to a Public School. Warrant 2A Safety Warrant There are two parts to this warrant, the Crash Component and Risk Component. Analysis was completed for both. Crash Component This warrant is satisfied when a crash ratio of less than 1:900 (crashes per year: AADT) is achieved over an averaged 36 month period. Only crashes with a causal factor related to one of the Highway Traffic Act violations should be included. A review of all accidents was undertaken through the study area. Based on the District s Motor Vehicle Accident database, a total of 3 accidents were reported between 2000 and 2014. Using these three observations from above results in an averaged crash occurrence of 0.64 accidents per 36 month period (0.2 accidents per year). When used in combination with the 2015 AADT (which has a value of 1110 vehicles per day), the crashes per year: AADT ratio becomes 0.2:1110 (which is significantly less than the 1:900 ratio required). Based on this observed accident ratio, the crash component portion of this warrant is not satisfied. 3 of 6 Page 8
Muskoka Road 5 Honey Harbour - Warrant Analysis February 2016 Risk Component This warrant recognizes that a safety concern may exist even though it has not been reflected in the accident history. In order to analyze this, elements of risk are put through the scoring matrix below. A score of 15 total points indicates justification for the warrant. Notes to provide the rationale for each score are supplied below as well. Table 1 Risk Component Scoring Matrix Risk Factor High (Score 3) Moderate (Score 2) Low (Score 1) Score Posted Speed Limit 70 km/h or over 60 50 or under 1 85th Percentile over 15km/hr + 5 to 15 km/hr 1 to 5km/hr 1 Average Daily Traffic over 20,000 10,000 to 20,000 Under 10,000 1 No. of Lanes 5 4 2 1 Sidewalks <25% of length 25 to 75% of length >75% of length 2 Truck Route >100/hr 50 to 100/hr <50/hr 1 Average No. of Pedestrians in any 8 hours of the day No. of intersections and commercial driveways >100/hr 50 to 100/hr <50/hr 3 (1) >10/km 4 to 10/km <4/km 3 (1) Total Score 13 Notes: (1) - value assigned highest score possible as a conservative measure. (2) - Counts indicate an average daily traffic value of 1110 (2015 AADT count) Based on the above results, neither the crash or risk components of this analysis are satisfied. 4 of 6 Page 9
Muskoka Road 5 Honey Harbour - Warrant Analysis February 2016 Figure 1 Speed Profile from Collected Field Data 5000 2015 Speed Profile - Honey Harbour CSZ Analysis 4000 3000 2000 1000 Number of Vehicles East of HH School West of Store 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Speed (km/h) 60 65 70 75 80 A speed profile (Figure 1 above) was generated based on field data collected using tube counters and analyzed with TraxPro software. As can be seen above, both count locations indicate the majority of vehicles travelling at or below the posted speed. 85 th percentile speeds were determined to be 37 and 45 km/h for the west and east locations, respectively, both of which are below the posted 50 km/h speed limit. Warrant 3 Other Applicable Measures/Devices No other countermeasures have been tried for the study area and as such this warrant is not justified (additional measures could include such examples as increased enforcement of speed limits, oversize speed limit signs). In order for this CSZ warrant to be satisfied, other applicable counter measures must have been implemented and fail to reduce the crash ratio to acceptable levels. Given that the current crash ratio is acceptable, this warrant will continue to remain unsatisfied until Warrant #2 above is applicable. Warrant 4 OPP Approval An OPP review of the potential CSZ must find that this is an area of special concern, and their subsequent agreement to provide enforcement for this area is required for this warrant to be satisfied. Due to the fact that Warrants 1 through 3 have not been satisfied, an OPP review for the study area has not been requested at this time. 5 of 6 Page 10
Muskoka Road 5 Honey Harbour - Warrant Analysis February 2016 Conclusion In order for a CSZ to be implemented, all four of the above warrants must be satisfied. Based on the fact that Warrants 1 through 3, as well as the conclusion that Warrant 4 is unnecessary at this time, it is not recommended that a CSZ be implemented for this study area. It is recommended that this area be re-assessed for CSZ justification if fundamental changes are observed within the study area (i.e. urbanization/development of the rural portions, increased numbers of accidents resulting in Highway Traffic Act violations). 6 of 6 Page 11