lenox avenue traffic study - the village green...aug 10, 2016 · road closure (bisection of lenox...

A NEIGHBOR-LED SAFE STREETS INITIATIVE

Public Forum - August 10, 2016

LENOX AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY

-

WHO WE ARE:

Mark GradyRon Charles

Alison McInerney

Objective:A holistic long term solution to the existingand growing traffic problems that plagueLenox Avenue.

Use data to understand root cause andapply industry / government best practicesfor an effective solution.

What is the Problem?• The curves & grade changes at the intersections gives rise to line-of-sight issues where

Lenox Ave intersects Wyoming & South Ridgewood.• Large grade changes along Lenox Ave lead to (likely) speed issue, which exacerbates the

line of sight issue.• Lenox Ave is the only nearby local street to link 3 “major collector” roadways, leading to

higher volume which exacerbates the speed and line of sight issues.• GPS and Navigation Apps (i.e. Google Maps) direct motorists to use Lenox Avenue with

regularity; ignoring that it is designated as a local road.

How Dangerous is it?OPRA requests for 10+ years of Lenox Ave crash data yield:• 22 crashes at Wyoming intersection in the last 11 years

(including 1 fatality).• 19 crashes at the South Ridgewood intersection in the last

11 years.• 6 crashes at the Walton intersection in the last 11 years.• Of these 47 crashes, 85% involved a vehicle using Lenox

Avenue.

• The NHTSA crash rate during daylight hours is 25%.• Lenox Ave intersection crash rate during daylight hours is

87%. (no headlights to warn of approaching vehicle)

• Only 10% of crashes resulted in the issuance of a movingviolation.

3.2

4.4

5 5 5.25.6

4.4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Crash Trend Across 3Intersections / Year

1

1

3

37

79

10

11

13

14

18

19

9

10

11

13

14

18

19

4

4

6

6

16

16

1751217

5

12

1 Jan 3, 2005 12:11pm Clear Dry Daylight2 Aug 12, 2006 1.12pm Clear Dry Daylight3 Jan 29, 2008 1:47pm Rain Wet Daylight4 Aug 12, 2009 8:41am Clear Dry Daylight

5 Oct 27, 2009 5:56pm Rain Wet Dark6 Jul 24, 2010 11:27am Clear Dry Daylight7 Jul 30, 2010 1 :24pm Clear Dry Daylight8 Jul 4, 2011 8:50pm Clear Dry Daylight9 Oct 2, 2011 2:35pm Clear Dry Daylight

No. Date Time Weather Road Light

10 Dec 26, 2011 3:12pm Clear Dry Daylight11 Aug 12, 2012 4:30pm Clear Dry Daylight12 Apr 1, 2013 4:48pm Rain Wet Daylight13 Jul 13, 2013 8:52am Clear Wet Daylight14 Oct 23, 2013 5:15pm Clear Dry Daylight15 Mar 1, 2014 2:05pm Clear Wet Daylight16 Jul 23, 2014 7:14pm Clear Dry Daylight

17 Dec 28, 2014 5:13pm Clear Dry Dark18 Feb 13, 2015 1:40pm Clear Dry Daylight19 May 20, 2015 6:42pm Clear Dry Daylight

Ridgewood/Lenox Crash Analysis (2005-2015)

2

2

ADJUSTEDCOMPARATIVECRASH TOTALS

The numbers indicate crash totalsat area intersections from 1/1/05

to 7/1/16.

The first number indicates totalcrashes and the parenthetical

notation indicates crashesinvolving a vehicle using Lenox

Ave.

For instance, the 1 crash at LenoxPlace & Cedar Lane was the

result of a single vehicle collidingwith a temporary water pipe alongthe curb. Intersection opposing

traffic did not play a part.

22 (21)

0

0

0

1 (1)

8 (6)

1 (0)

1 (0)

0

7 (1)

6 (3)

1 (0)

19 (17)

TBD

TBD

0

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH• Collected destination data at the 3 major intersections

on a typical design-day• Included vehicles, pedestrians & bicycles• Included approach & destination of everything passing

through each intersection• Stitched videos together to quantify how many cars

use Lenox Ave for non-local means.• Total of 52 hours of video watched to manually

tabulate each movement.• “Volume leak” at Thornden, Lenox Pl, & Lenox Terrace

results in a more conservative (i.e. higher) % of localtraffic.

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH

1 2

3

4

56

7 8

9

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCH

LENOX AVE VIDEO RESEARCHOverall, over 62% of all cars using Lenox Ave are non-local traffic

NON-LOCAL PERCENTAGE – TRAFFIC ENTERING LENOX

MINOR CONNECTION MAJOR CONNECTION

VOLUME & SPEED RESEARCH

• SOPD collected data at Lenox Ave/Ridgewood Rd intersection• Manual counts from videos verified by SOPD tube data• 85th percentile speed is the determining factor for confirming a

speed problem.• For a 25 mph speed limit, 35 mph is the determining factor for

the 85th percentile to trigger that speed is a problem.• Additional neighborhood numbers are required to give us a

picture of overall flow & the comparative peak flows across allarea streets.

• Full data set will significantly confirm whether speed and/orvolume are significant factors for the elevated crash risk.

PLANNEDVOLUME & SPEED

COLLECTIONADT (85th% speed)

Significant data collection requiredof volume & speed at all indicated

locations to verify anecdotalunderstanding of neighborhoodflow & determine where speed

problems exist.

85th percentile speed at eachindicated location will be

significant to determining wherespeed

control improvements are needed.

RESEARCH

• South Orange Transportation Advisory Committee (SOTAC)• South Orange Public Safety Committee (SOPS)• NJDOT Roadway Design Manual• Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)• Federal Highway Administration guidelines (FHWA)• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines (NHTSA)• Rutgers University Voorhees Transportation Center

• State and Municipal planning documents delineating which area roads are“major collectors” (Wyoming, Ridgewood, & Walton) and which are “local”(all other streets)

• State and County planning documents delineating Wyoming as a CountyRoad

• NJDOT Design Manual: a posted speed of 25 mph requires a 30 mphdesign speed

• NJDOT Design Manual: stopping sight distance for 30 mph design speed is200 feet minimum

How Do We Solve It?Considerations and criteria for each potential solution:

• Does Lenox Ave meet required technical design/installation criteria?• Does the solution meet Town, State and Municipal guidelines?• What is relative cost?• What are maintenance considerations?• What is the anticipated impact to the overall neighborhood

(surrounding streets in South Orange and Maplewood)?• Can it be tested/piloted easily?

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresSpeed Humps / BumpsCriteria Details

Technical design / installationcriteria

Less than 3,000 ADT, max posted speed limit of 25MPH,max roadway grade of 8%.

Town/State/Municipalguidelines

Requires NJDOT approval. Emergency Services do notrecommend.

Cost Low but ongoing.

Maintenance Moderate due to snow plow damage.

Impact to neighborhood Will slow vehicles at humps, may cause speed increasebetween. May reduce traffic flow. Parking loss wherelocated.

Can it be piloted? Yes. Temporary humps can be installed.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures4-Way StopCriteria Details


Typically requires roughly equivalent traffic volume thruintersection.


Can likely be adopted by local ordinance w/o county orNJDOT review. No impact to Emergency Services.

Cost Minimal.

Maintenance Minimal (roadway paint upkeep).

Impact to neighborhood Enforcement required for effectiveness.

Can it be piloted? Yes due to low cost.

Other Not generally intended as a traffic calming measure.Additional discussion later in this presentation.

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresRoad Redesign (Intersection realignment)

Criteria Details


Requires sizeable financial commitment to obtain privateland & complete construction.


NJDOT review expected with approval required.

Cost Extremely High.

Maintenance Minimal after initial construction.

Impact to neighborhood Significant construction effort & purchase of private land.

Can it be piloted? No.

Other No clear reconfiguration applicable at Wyoming/Lenoxintersection.

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresRumble StripsCriteria Details


Typically installed as a warning of stop ahead. Location perNJDOT guidelines.


Can be adopted by local ordinance.No impact to Emergency Services.

Cost Low

Maintenance Low

Impact to neighborhood Noise pollution

Can it be piloted? Yes, temporary strips are available.

Other Not shown to effectively calm traffic.

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresRoundabout (Neighborhood traffic circle)

Criteria Details


Per NJDOT guidelines & in conjunction with emergencyservices to ensure turning radii and access for fire trucks.


Likely requires NJDOT approval. Requires assessment byEmergency Services based on intersection chosen.

Cost High.

Maintenance Low (paint, landscaping, curb maintenance).

Impact to neighborhood Removes intersection right angle conflict movements.


Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresChicanes

Criteria Details


Follow NJDOT and FHWA guidelines;Must have median island on 2-lane roads for effectiveness.


NJDOT review not likely required. Emergency Services haveconcerns on truck access & operation space.

Cost Moderate (depending on landscape & stormwater impact).

Maintenance Low/Moderate (depending on landscaping amount).

Impact to neighborhood Loss of parking at several locations. Potential troublebacking out of driveways.

Can it be piloted? Yes, with painted chicanes & temporary bollards.

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresRoad Closure (Bisection of Lenox Avenue)Criteria Details


Signage of roadway change & visibility must meet NJDOTguidelines.


Likely under municipal control but may require countyreview. No impact to Emergency Services.

Cost Low (planters, paint & signage).

Maintenance Low (minimal landscaping for DPW maintenance).

Impact to neighborhood Reconfigured neighborhood access.

Can it be piloted? Yes (planters, paint & signage).

Other Additional discussion later in this presentation.

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresTraffic Signal

Criteria Details


Elevated & equivalent traffic flows through all legs of theintersection.


Requires NJDOT & county approval.

Cost High.

Maintenance Low after initial installation.

Impact to neighborhood Controlled exit off of Lenox Ave onto collectors.


Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresOne-Way RoadCriteria Details


Signage & access per NJDOT & FHWA guidelines.


Likely under municipal control w/o NJDOT review.

Cost Low (signage, paint).

Maintenance Low (paint).

Impact to neighborhood Remove volume in one direction but potentially increase ofvolume & speed in direction of the one-way due to lack ofopposing traffic flow. Reconfigured neighborhood access.

Can it be piloted? Yes.

Other Additional discussion later in this presentation.

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresCurb Extensions / Bump Outs

Criteria Details


Dimensions per state & federal guidelines. Cannot infringeupon the 2 lanes of traffic. Must factor in stormwatercollection impact. Requires vertical indicator.


Under municipal control. Emergency Services concern.DPW & Engineering concern.

Cost Moderate.

Maintenance Low as long as snow plows don’t damage them.

Impact to neighborhood Reduction in speed due to tighter turning radii.

Can it be piloted? Yes (paint and temporary bollards).

Standard Traffic Calming MeasuresLine of Sight

Criteria Details


In accordance with the 2 South Orange ordinances (1 forstructures & 1 for plants).


Governed by local ordinance. Responsibility of residents tomaintain property per code, otherwise enforcementneeded by town.

Cost None.

Maintenance None unless resident doesn’t manage their plants.

Impact to neighborhood Decrease in crashes; potential increase in speed & volume.


Other Both Ridgewood & Wyoming recently improved.

Standard Traffic Calming Measures“No left turn”

Criteria Details

Technical design /installation criteria

Effective installation will have physical barrier blocking leftturn possibility, but only signage is possible due to EmergencyServices access requirements from Ridgewood.


Under municipal control. No impact to Emergency Services ifno physical barrier. Requires Police enforcement.

Cost Low (paint, signage).

Maintenance Low (paint).

Impact to neighborhood Minimal, if any.

Can it be piloted? Yes.

FHWA Intersection Safety Enhancements“Low-cost Safety Enhancements for Stop-Controlled Inter.”

Measure Threshold Add’l factors Cost range

5 basic sign & markingimprovements

10 crashes in 5 years None$5,000 -$8,000

Flashing beacons on advanceintersection warning signs as well ason “Stop” signs

15-20 crashes in 5years

None (done at Wyomingalready)

$5,000 –15,000

Dynamic warning sign that astopped vehicle is at the intersection

20-30 crashes in 5years

5 angle crashes in 5 years& sight distance issues

$10,000 -$25,000

“Stop Ahead” pavement markings5 running stop signcrashes in 5 years

Inadequate stopping sightdistance (Wyoming)

< $1,000

Extension of travel lane using shortskip pattern

10 crashes in 5 yearsWide throat & vehiclesstopped too far back

< $1,000

Reflective stripes on sign posts 10 crashes in 5 years Sign visibility degraded < $1,000

Summary:• Speed humps/bumps on Lenox between Ridgewood & Wyoming (grade likely exceeds 8%).• Speed humps/bumps on Lenox between Walton & Ridgewood.• 4-way stop at Ridgewood or Wyoming intersections (volume flows don’t allow; significant

impact to operation of collector roads).• 4-way stop at Lenox Ave/Lenox Pl/Thornden intersection.• Road redesign/intersection realignment (private property required; extreme cost).• Rumble strips (noise pollution).• Roundabout at Ridgewood or Wyoming (Ridgewood space limit; Wyoming county control).• Roundabout at Lenox Ave/Lenox Pl/Thornden intersection (high cost; no pilot possible).• Chicanes (high cost; maintenance; Emergency Services concerns).• Bisection of Lenox Ave.• Traffic light (volume flows don’t allow).• One way road.• Curb extensions/bump outs.• Line of sight.• “No left turn” (sign only due to Emergency Service access; Police enforcement concern).• FHWA enhancements.

Detailed examples:

1. Low-cost safety enhancements package.2. Change Lenox Ave to one-way (various configurations)3. 4-way stop signs on Lenox Ave at Lenox Place & Thornden Street4. Bisect Lenox Avenue between Lenox Place & Thornden Street

MODIFICATION #1: Basic

Flashing advancewarning sign

Flashing stop sign

Dynamic warning sign

“Stop Ahead” markings Travel lane short skiplines

Reflective stripes onsign posts

Advance intersectionwarning sign w/ street

name

“Stop Ahead” warningsigns

Oversize “Stop” sign Stop bar placement

MODIFICATION #1: Supplemental

MODIFICATION #1

“FHWA” deployment considerations:• Each sub-item has various costs ranging from less than $1,000 up to $25,000.• Basic package includes: doubled up overside advance intersection warning signs w/ street

name, doubled up oversize advance “Stop Ahead” warning signs, doubled up oversize“Stop” signs, verification that stop bars are placed in accordance with FHWArecommendations, & removal of any foliage or parking that limits sight distance.

• Cost of entire Basic package anticipated between $5,000-$8,000 & has a proven crashreduction factor of 40%.

• Supplemental items are targeted to intersections with specific types of crashes that thecountermeasure can address. Crash reduction factors range from unknown to 15% each.

• All items are intersection-focused & aim to enable to existing motorists to more-safelytraverse the intersections.

• FHWA document lists 7 supplemental measures, 2 of which are not applicable. Theremaining 5 measures would total between $20,000-$52,000.

• Easiest to install for Ridgewood/Lenox intersection, but can do most for Wyoming/Lenoxwith coordination with Essex County.

• Can apply many of these to Ridgewood/Cedar, Walton/Audley, & Walton/Lenox if desired.

MODIFICATION #1

Integrate all applicableFHWA Low-cost Safety

Enhancements

• Studied & proven nationally toreduce crashes.

• Intersection focused &applicable to locations withinadequate sight distance &

skewed angle.• 6-10 countermeasures available

depending on budget.

MODIFICATION #2

Make a Section of LenoxAvenue One-Way

(Three possibleconfiguration examples)

N

One-Way Road considerations:• Lowers volume on the designated section of Lenox Avenue.• Lowers volume through the related intersection (which one(s) depends on which

configuration), thus decreasing potential conflict.• Potential increase in volume to the adjacent street(s).• Potential speed increase on the one-way section due to the creation of an effectively

‘wider’ roadway with no oncoming traffic.• Within municipality’s control; likely doesn’t require county or state review.

MODIFICATION #2

MODIFICATION #3

4-way stop signs onLenox Avenue at Lenox

Place& Thornden Street

• Mimics existing condition onCedar Lane at Owen Rd &

Lenox Terr.• Requires enforcement by police

for effectiveness.

N

NEW

NEW

EXISTING

EXISTING

Stop signadditions onLenox Avenue

MOD. #3

Stop sign deployment considerations:• Mimics existing condition on Cedar Lane at Owen Rd & Lenox Terrace.• Focuses on potential speeding issue on Lenox Ave between Wyoming & Ridgewood.• Requires ongoing enforcement by police department to ensure motorists use Lenox Ave in

a safe manner.• Can be installed somewhat simply & quickly. Signs & paint go on quick & easy, but curb

cuts for crosswalks require additional funding & contracting.• Within municipality’s control; likely doesn’t require county or state review.• MUTCD requires higher volume than exists.• Interface with technology firms to update their GPS & map data to list Lenox Ave as a local-

only street.

MODIFICATION #3

MODIFICATION #4

Bisect Lenox Avenuebetween Lenox Place

& Thornden Street

• Mimics existing condition doneevery school day.

• Neighborhood volume/speeddata will allow for more

thorough review.

N

Bisection pilot

Inspiration exampleMODIFICATION #4

Deployment considerations:• Pilot-only initial deployment to ensure adjacent neighborhood roadways do not bear

undue burden on both sides of town border.• 12 month pilot to verify across all seasons and usage, though ongoing monitoring & review

would occur from the start.• Minimize potential short-term volume increase on Lenox Place by scheduling deployment

for mid-winter (to protect children who play in Lenox Place street).• Can be installed fairly inexpensively using paint, signage & planters.• Deployment of electronic signs at adjacent major collectors informing motorists of

upcoming traffic pattern change well in advance.• Interface with technology firms to update their GPS & map data; both to inform of the

roadway change, as well as to ensure Cedar Lane is quantified as a local only street.• Reduces volume thru all 3 major intersections by 55%; reducing the crash opportunity risk.

MODIFICATION #5

Next steps for the study:• Collect & incorporate Thornden crash data.• Collect & incorporate extensive volume & speed data throughout neighborhood in

collaboration with SOPD & MWPD.• Review all public feedback with SOTAC & SOPS committees.• Reanalyze all options on the table, & provide an updated recommendation to the

committees for their consideration.

Thanks!Sign in at the back table to:• Receive the presentation & data set digitally.• Volunteer to help coordinate the data collection in Maplewood.• Be informed as to when the additional data is planned for discussion at SOTAC.

lenox avenue traffic study - the village green...aug 10, 2016 · road closure (bisection of lenox...

Documents