Evaluation and Prioritization of Community Traffic Studies

Ryan Vanderputten, P.Eng.

Abstract. The City of Calgary adopted a Traffic Calming Policy in January, 2003 to
provide clear direction on the types of traffic calming measures to be considered in
Calgary, and appropriate circumstances for their use. As part of this policy, a
framework was developed to evaluate and prioritize communities for neighbourhood
traffic calming studies. With over 230 communities in Calgary, and limited staff
resources to investigate traffic issues, this process ensures that communities with the
most severe traffic issues are dealt with on a priority basis. This paper outlines the
process in which communities are evaluated and prioritized.

Screening is the first step in responding to reported traffic issues. This is undertaken to
determine if the reported issues can be resolved using traffic calming measures, to
identify the specific characteristics of the issues and to determine whether there is
support in the community to address the reported issues. The screening process is
then followed by evaluation and prioritization activities. This involves assigning a
numerical rating to an issue based on a set of evaluation criteria, and then determining
the relative priority of all reported issues based on their ratings. The criteria used
reflects the goals of traffic calming, specifically safety and livability, as well as objectives
of reducing speed and short-cutting volume, and minimizing conflicts between road
users. Community support is also considered in the evaluation, as a basis for assigning
higher priority to areas with higher levels of community support.

INTRODUCTION

The City of Calgary adopted a Traffic Calming Policy in January, 2003 to provide clear
direction on the types of traffic calming measures to be considered in Calgary, and
appropriate circumstances for their use. As part of this policy, a framework was
developed to evaluate and prioritize communities for neighbourhood traffic calming
studies. With over 230 communities in Calgary, and limited staff resources to
investigate traffic issues, this process ensures that communities with the most severe
traffic issues are dealt with on a priority basis. This paper outlines the process in which
communities are evaluated and prioritized.

PLANNING

The City of Calgary has grouped traffic issues into five categories, as described below.
The first two categories, isolated and area-wide issues, are addressed by the
Transportation Planning Division, through traffic calming. The other issues are referred
to other departments, where they are dealt with by separate methodologies.
• Isolated Issues – In many areas of Calgary, especially in outlying suburban areas,
traffic issues arise in isolated, localized locations. Examples include pedestrian
safety at intersections adjacent to schools, speeding in playground zones, Stop sign
compliance and conflicts at marked crosswalks. These issues are dealt with
individually, on an isolated basis, since there are typically few adjacent issues. Care
is taken to avoid creating new problems or exacerbating other existing problems in
the area.

• Area-wide Issues – Generally in the inner-city communities, there are a wide range
of traffic issues on multiple streets within a community. For example, speeding and
short-cutting traffic might be an issue on several streets, or pedestrian safety might
be an issue at a number of locations throughout an area. In these cases, it is not
appropriate to address each issue on an isolated basis, as a traffic calming solution
intended to address one problem, would likely create or exacerbate problems on
adjacent streets. Instead, it is prudent to develop a traffic calming solution on an
area-wide basis, considering all of the issues within the community.

• Operational Issues – Traffic calming solutions are not appropriate for some traffic
issues. Issues that involve problems with traffic movement, road safety and parking
require an operational solution and are addressed through existing City procedures.
Examples of such issues include sight distance problems created by on-street
parking, operational problems at signalized intersections, parking problems, roadway
geometric issues and enforcement issues. Resolving operational issues should not
create new or impact existing traffic issues in the area.

• Project-related Issues – In some cases, a road construction project, development

project or other project could affect traffic on adjacent streets, potentially creating
traffic issues. In these cases, traffic issues are addressed as part of the project
plans and development review process, rather than developing a separate traffic
calming plan. In addition, potential issues that may arise in the future as a result of a
construction or development project should not be addressed with a traffic calming
solution until such time as a problem actually arises.

• Other Issues – There are many other traffic issues for which a traffic calming
solution is not appropriate. Such issues include speeding and safety issues on
major and collector roads, traffic calming measures proposed on new roads as part
of a new development, issues associated with special events and education issues
such as drinking and driving.
PROCESS FOR RESPONDING TO ISSUES

As part of the new Traffic Calming Policy, The City of Calgary developed a process for
responding to traffic issues reported by members of the public, and prioritizing those
issues that could be dealt with using traffic calming. Figure 1 illustrates the process of
responding to reported traffic issues.

Figure 1: Process for Responding to Traffic Issues

The two main areas of the process are Screening and Evaluation & Prioritization.

SCREENING

Screening is the first step in responding to reported traffic issues. Screening is

undertaken for several reasons:

• To determine whether the issue is one that requires a traffic calming solution, or
another response;
• For traffic calming issues, to identify the specific characteristics of the issue:
problem, location, time of day, duration, magnitude and so forth;
• For traffic calming issues, to determine whether others in the community agree that
there is a problem, and to determine whether there is support for action to address
the reported issue; and
• To ensure that City staff and resources are directed to those issues for which action
is necessary and appropriate.

The screening process involves the following three activities:

• Document the issue

• Determine the appropriate response
• Determine support for further action

The screening process is then followed by evaluation and prioritization activities.

A. Document the Issue

In order to address a traffic calming issue effectively, it is important that the issue be
accurately described. Otherwise, a traffic calming solution might be developed which
does not fully address the issue, or is more restrictive than required. For this reason, a
standard means of reporting and documenting traffic issues in Calgary was developed.
A standardized form allows residents to document the issues that they are concerned
about, providing as much detail as possible. In addition, residents are asked to provide
their names and contact information for follow-up, and are required to obtain
endorsements from their community association, alderman and police liaison.

Information requested on the reporting form includes a description of the location,

magnitude, duration, times of day and other characteristics of the problem. In addition,
residents are asked to categorize issues as either pedestrian safety, speeding, short-
cutting traffic or other issue.

B. Determine the Appropriate Response

Once an issue is reported and documented, the next step of the screening process is to
determine the appropriate response to the issue. In some cases, such as for
operational and project-related issues, it is not appropriate to respond to a reported
issue with a traffic calming solution. Instead, reported issues are directed to the
appropriate City department or external agency responsible for the project.

For issues for which no actions are required, a letter is sent to the community describing
the reasons why no further action is being taken. In all cases, once the appropriate
response has been determined, City staff advises the community association and other
community representatives of the decision.

C. Determine Support for Further Action

For isolated and area-wide issues, there should be a minimum level of support within
the community for action to address the issue. This helps to avoid situations where
residents might consider a solution more of a problem than the issue it was intended to
address. It also aims to avoid having City staff spend time and funds responding to a
reported issue that is only considered a problem by a small number of people.

At this stage, it is not necessary to demonstrate majority support within the community
for a traffic calming solution. Rather, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a sufficient
number of people within the community agree that there is a need to examine the issue
further. Consequently, a sufficient level of community support would be indicated by a
minimum of one third of affected households for isolated issues, and a minimum of 20%
for area-wide issues. Where a community has greater than 40% apartments, lower
levels of support and alternative methods of demonstrating support are considered. For
isolated issues, affected households are typically those within one block of the reported
problem.

Residents are responsible for documenting community support, rather than City staff.
The simplest means of indicating community support is a form that lists the addresses
of all affected households, and includes space for signatures of residents. It is intended
that City staff identify affected households and provide a customized form with
addresses of these households included on the form. Local residents would then
contact persons in affected households to obtain the minimum required number of
signatures.

EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION

After the screening process has been completed and community support for further
action has been demonstrated, the next step is to evaluate and prioritize the issues.
This involves assigning a numerical rating to an issue based on a set of evaluation
criteria, and then determining the relative priority of all reported issues based on their
ratings.

The evaluation and prioritization process ensures that the most serious and most
extensive issues are addressed first. This allows for traffic calming funds to be
allocated to where they can provide the greatest benefit, and treats all areas of the City
equally and fairly.
City staff address issues in order of priority, as funding and resources permit. Highest
priority issues are addressed first, and other issues are addressed once higher-priority
issues have been resolved. In general, City staff address as many issues each year as
possible, depending on staffing and funding availability.

The City of Calgary currently uses five equally weighted criteria to determine its
priorities for community traffic studies: speed, volume, collisions, safety and community
support. These criteria relate directly to the goals of traffic calming, specifically safety
and livability, as well as objectives of reducing speed and short-cutting volume, and
minimizing conflicts between road users.

A. Speed

The speed differential between posted speed and measured speed is the primary
criteria used within this category. The number of streets with a speeding problem is
also used to compare communities. On a scale of 0 to 20, 20 represents the area with
the highest recorded speed differentials and greatest number of streets with speeding.

Measured speed is typically recorded as the 85th percentile speed in both directions,
using 24-hour data at regular locations, and daytime hours only for playground and
school zones. Speed differentials for the period when a reduced speed limit is in effect,
such as in playground and school zones, tend to be higher than speed differentials
when the normal speed limit is in effect. Hence, an area with a speed differential of 7
km/h in a 50 km/h zone could receive a similar rating as an area with a 14 km/h
differential in a reduced 30 km/h speed zone.

B. Volume

Daily vehicle volume and percentage of vehicles short-cutting through a residential area
are the specific criteria used to compare the impact of volume on a residential
community. Short-cutting traffic is defined as traffic on a given roadway that has neither
an origin nor destination in that community. A scale of 0 to 20 is used, where 20
represents the area with the highest percentage short-cutting and daily volume which
exceeds that expected for the primary function.

The daily volume can be based on either manual or automatic traffic counts, and is
subjective to the function of the roadway. Both the primary and secondary functions of
a roadway are identified to assist the user in evaluating the impact of specific volumes.
The two roadway functions typically identified for traffic calming purposes include local
access and collection of traffic.

The percentage of short-cutting traffic is calculated based on the peak two hour period,
in the peak direction, on the most significant short-cutting route through the community,
as identified by the community representatives. In Calgary, this data is collected
manually by capturing license plate data on a voice recorder at both ends of a short-
cutting route. This allows the data collection staff to determine the number of vehicles
which were recorded entering and exiting a community within a specified time limit, thus
classifying them as short-cutting.
C. Collisions

Collision rate and severity index calculations are used to evaluate the impact of
collisions on the safety and livability of a community. On a scale of 0 to 20, 20
represents the area with the highest number and severity of collisions.

The collision rate is calculated using reported collisions over a three year span. The
rate is calculated using the volume of vehicles entering an intersection, or million-
vehicle-kilometres for mid-block locations. Collision severity index is a weighted
average of collisions where fatalities are 100 times as severe, and injury collisions are
10 times as severe as collisions where there is property damage only.

D. Safety

Safety factors used in evaluating reported traffic issues include the provision of a
continuous sidewalk network, the number of pedestrians and cyclists, the existence of
pedestrian generators and signed bicycle routes.

Sidewalk continuity is based on the proportion of neighbourhood streets with continuous

sidewalks on at least one side. This factor is given a scale of 0 to 5, where 5 represents
the community with the fewest proportion of continuous sidewalks.

The existence of amenities that generate or attract a significant amount of pedestrian

traffic can influence the need for an improved pedestrian environment. These
pedestrian generators can include schools, community centres, shopping complexes
and recreation facilities. Peak hour pedestrian volume is also considered. On a scale
of 0 to 10, 10 represents the area with the highest number of pedestrian generators and
the highest level of pedestrian use.

The number of designated bike routes and peak hour cyclist volume indicates the
potential for conflict between modes. As such, on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 represents the
area with the highest number of bicycle routes and highest level of bicycle use.

E. Community Support

Community support is also included in the evaluation, as a basis for assigning higher
priority to areas with higher levels of community support. Support is measured using
the Community Support form, with the percentage of affected households supporting
the requested action being used to compare individual areas. In addition, support from
the ward alderman can also be used to document further community support. 20 points
are awarded to the community with the highest level of support.

F. Overall Rating

The individual ratings are combined to get an overall rating out of a possible 100 points.
Communities are ranked based on their overall rating, with priority given to the
community with the highest rating. The individual ratings, and thus the overall score, is
based on the comparison between communities. As such, fluctuations do occur as
additional communities apply for a traffic study.

The City of Calgary typically establishes its annual community traffic calming planning
program in February of each year, based on the rankings in place at that time. The
number of communities included in the annual work program is based on the availability
of staff resources.

Figure 2 is a snapshot of the current evaluation matrix.

COMMUNITY
SPEED VOLUME COLLISIONS SAFETY
SUPPORT OVERALL
Location/Community Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating RATING
(0-20 (0-20 (0-20 (0-20 (0-20
/100
points) points) points) points) points)
AREA-WIDE ISSUES
2003

Signal Hill (Sierra Morena) 17 16 10 5 12 60

Ramsey 17 17 10 6 10 60
2004 Killarney/Glengarry 17 11 12 5 13 58
Capri Avenue (Brentwood) 18 12 10 3 14 57
Shawnee-Evergreen 19 14 10 4 10 57
Mayland Heights 11 18 10 6 10 55
Inglewood 17 12 10 3 11 53
University Heights 8 10 10 6 11 45
Fairview 10 10 10 2 11 43
Elboya data collection underway
Strathcona data collection underway
Shaganappi received issue reporting form

Figure 2: Evaluation and Prioritization Matrix (October 2003)

SUCCESSES TO DATE

The traffic calming policy has been in effect for just over one year at the time of this
paper. The evaluation and prioritization process was successful in defining the work
program for 2003, with two communities selected for community traffic studies, which
were initiated during the year. The City is in the process of finalizing its work program
for 2004, and is currently reviewing a number of communities for inclusion in the
evaluation process.

When the 2003 work program was determined, there were a total of seven communities
on the prioritization list, some of which were communities which the city had already
been in discussions with prior to the approval of the traffic calming policy. As of
February 2004, there are a total of ten communities being evaluated for traffic studies.

LESSONS LEARNED

Since the evaluation process was adopted in late 2002, there have only been two
isolated issues evaluated and responded to. Most of the traffic issues reported by
communities have been evaluated as area-wide issues. It was recently decided by City
staff to evaluate isolated issues separately from area-wide issues. The impact of this
separation will be determined over the next year or so.

Community support has been a tough criteria to quantify. To date, the city has not
produced any customized community support forms. Many communities have taken
alternative approaches, using such media as petitions, open house surveys, or multiple
copies of the traffic issue reporting form from each resident of the affected area. The
development of personalized support forms is a labour intensive task, however a
standardized way of evaluating community support is still required to fairly evaluate
communities.

The data requirements for fully evaluating communities is quite extensive, requiring
speed and volume surveys, short-cutting studies, collision data, as well as pedestrian
and cyclist volumes. Depending on whether communities identify all of these issues as
problems in their area, the City to date has not collected some of the above data, and
evaluated the communities without taking certain criteria into account. The most
common criteria removed from the equation were short-cutting percentage and collision
data. One of the reasons collision data is not always collected is due to the labour
involved with recalling the existing collision data. The City of Calgary is currently in the
process of implementing a new collision reporting system, which will simplify the
retrieval of collision records.

SUMMARY

The evaluation and prioritization process described in the City of Calgary Traffic
Calming Policy has been effective in dealing with the public requests for traffic calming
studies. The process allows the limited staff resources to best serve the communities
most in need.

As requested by City Council, the entire Traffic Calming Policy, including the evaluation
and prioritization process, will be reviewed at the end of 2004.

More information on the Traffic Calming Policy can be found on the City of Calgary’s
website: www.calgary.ca/transportation

AUTHOR’S INFORMATION

Ryan Vanderputten, P.Eng.

Transportation Planner
The City of Calgary
PO Box 2100, Stn. M, #8124
Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 2M5
Phone: (403) 268-5490 Fax: (403) 268-1874
Email: ryan.vanderputten@calgary.ca
Website: http://www.calgary.ca/transportation
REFERENCES
Urban Systems Limited (2003) – “The City of Calgary Traffic Calming Policy” – Calgary,
AB, Canada.
Transportation Association of Canada (1998) – “Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood
Traffic Calming” – Ottawa, ON, Canada.