Rockland Neighbourhood Association

RNA COUNTER SPEEDING PROJECT
           Last update September 21 2011

OBJECTIVES

1.    Develop a strategy and action plan to reduce speeding violations and the volume of commuter traffic in the Rockland Neighbourhood, Rockland Avenue especially, for the safety of residents and animals (wildlife and pets) through the installation of new traffic calming features, and recommendations for improved compliance with, and enforcement of, the existing law.

2.    Take the necessary action to implement the plan and achieve the goal of a safer neighbourhood, according to safety criteria and measures defined in this project,   within a satisfactory timeframe.

Note: An unintended consequence, but a very real possibility, of calming traffic on Rockland Avenue is an increase in traffic particularly speeders, on Richardson, bordering Rockland and Fairfield/Gonzales.  Richardson has an existing problem with speeding traffic without the added risk of inadequate sightlines.  The City’s long-term transportation plan shows Richardson as a Bikeway.  The RNA Transportation Committee will liaise with the Fairfield/Gonzales Community Association (FGCA) with the intention to work together, not in isolation, to ensure that traffic safety management improvements in Rockland are not at the expense of safety in the neighbouring communities.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

The City of Victoria engaged two consulting firms to develop a transportation management plan for the Fairfield, Rockland and Gonzales neighbourhoods.  The final Neighbourhood Transportation Management Plan report (NTMP) was released in March 1999.    Neighbourhood plans for Fairfield, Rockland and Gonzales were prepared over ten years prior and consequently not directly useful in developing the NTMP.

The report presents a recommended NTMP intended to minimize the impacts of through traffic on local streets, while improving access and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The NTMP comprises approximately 70 pages (incl. appendices) and includes the following references among those that include Rockland:

•    Residents and business people have expressed concerns about through traffic, speeding on local streets, pedestrian safety …
•    “Collector road humps” (longer, wider and lower than speed bumps) designed to accommodate trucks and other large vehicles and parking on top of them, were recommended to reduce vehicle speeds on St. Charles (these are very different from standard speed bumps)

The priority recommendations of the NTMP included “Lower-cost and more cost-effective improvements – those which provide maximum benefit for relatively low cost – should be implemented before more expensive improvements.  For example speed humps cost $1,500 to $2,500, (updated 2011 price is $5,000 according to City)  compared with $20,000 for a sidewalk extension (1999 NTMB).”

The NTMP Appendices highlight the following negative features of Rockland Avenue:  difficult / unsafe crossing, pedestrians cross a blind curve in the road, no sidewalk on both sides of the street, speeding traffic, inappropriately slow speed limit, poor visibility at intersection,  and confusion at intersection.  A similar list applied to the Richardson Street and St. Charles Street corridors.

During the latter stages of developing the NTMP a number of issues were identified by residents which had not been previously identified.  No action was taken to address the issues in the NTMP but they were summarized and noted for monitoring for future phases on plan implementation.  Among the issues noted are:

Speeding Traffic:   Rockland Ave (Terrace to St. Francis Wood)
Short – cutting traffic: Green Oaks Ter. and Oak Shade Lane (Rockland to Richmond)

The City has taken no action, as a result of the 1999 NTMP, to effectively reduce speeding on Rockland Avenue.

The City of Victoria 2011 Draft Official Community Plan (2011 Draft OCP), Transportation and Mobility Section shows Rockland Ave as “Secondary Collector” a local functional classification. … “walkable thoroughfares appropriate for people priority greenways”.  This is what Rockland Avenue SHOULD be like. (see page 50, Figure 10 for full description)

The 2011 Draft OCP (page 55) says  “people priority greenways are located on traffic calmed secondary collector and local roads and are designed for pedestrians, bicycles and other non-motorized rolling traffic and motor vehicles consistent with the related guidelines for walkable urban thoroughfares in Figure 10”.

Rockland Avenue is a people priority greenway in the Greenways Network (2011 Draft OCP page 56 Map5)


ROCKLAND AVENUE TRAFFIC

The speed limit throughout Victoria is 50 kph unless otherwise posted.  The obvious question regarding Rockland Ave. traffic is “Why is the speed limit 30 kph and in some places a 20 kph is posted ?”   The short answer is “Because the majority of the length of Rockland, from Oak Bay Avenue to Cook Street is hazardous enough to require the reduced limit.”

The most hazardous sections are from Oak Bay Ave to Gonzales and from St. Charles to Moss.  Approximately 2/3 of Rockland between Oak Bay Ave and Cook St. is particularly hazardous to traffic, cyclists and pedestrians.

The hazard is the result of poor sightlines exacerbated by the narrow road, and traffic over the speed limit and often too fast for the road condition.

Government House (GH) and its access roads were established long before local traffic became a concern.  Consequently the existing three entry and exit driveways seriously contravene modern sightline (distance) requirements.

A sightline is an uninterrupted line of vision, visible to a driver, needed by the driver when exiting a driveway or street to verify that the road is clear to avoid conflict with other vehicles and traffic.  Features such as hills, curves in the road, vegetation, landscaping, signs, posts, gates and buildings can reduce sight distance.

Typically, sight distances are linked to the local speed limit.  The measurement of the driver’s view begins at a point approximately ten feet back from the road at a height of approximately four feet high.  Examples of visibility sightline requirements (minimums) in each direction are approximately … 140 feet @ 30kph, 280 feet @ 60kph, and 390 feet @80kph.

Guidelines for adequate sightlines are one of the most effective, important and basic methods a community can take to make its road safe for motorists and pedestrians.

The existing GH gates do not provide drivers the uninterrupted lines of vision in both directions.  The gates are a risk to public safety and a traffic hazard.  The risk is compounded by the fact that there is heavy use of the GH driveways.  In addition, the users range from commercial traffic, heavy equipment, GH staff, and visitors (many of whom are tourists and others who are not familiar with the local traffic hazards).  

The risk presented by the GH hazard is significantly mitigated by the 30kph speed limit on Rockland Avenue.   The low speed limit is the only thing preventing serious collisions.  But a sign is useless if a driver ignores the 30 kph limit and chooses to speed.

GH has three driveways in continuous use.
 
(1)    The main gate (entrance only) is relatively safe.  Although it is oddly positioned, and sightlines are nil, the expansive paved approach area adjacent to Rockland Avenue accommodates traffic turning into GH.

(2)    The exit gate east of the main gate, is opposite the Joan Crescent intersection and Rockland crosswalk.  This gate is the exit is for all GH traffic, except commercial vehicles that are supposed to use gate 3. 
The exiting traffic can be heavy at times.  In particular, when large events are hosted at GH dozens of cars will exit requiring commissionaires to control Rockland traffic. 
The sightlines at gate 2 for the exiting traffic are zero.  Stone pillars and vegetation block the driver’s view in both directions until he reaches the curb (the vehicle on the sidewalk with the front of the vehicle on the roadway).  Once the exiting driver is on the sidewalk and partially on the roadway, the view of the road is approximately 75 feet in each direction.
 
(3)    The commercial traffic gate further east, in the 1400 block of Rockland Avenue is used by commercial traffic, in and out of GH.  The commercial gate is similar to exit gate 2.  There are no sightlines until the driver is outside the gate.  Once the vehicle is out and partially on the road, the view of the road is only slightly longer than that from the exit gate 2.

Generally, the safe sight distance should be long enough to allow Rockland traffic to slow down, not necessarily stop, to avoid a collision.

The graphic below illustrates the concept of sightlines and sight distances.  With respect to the GH gates and blind access points on eastern Rockland, imagine the driver’s zero sightline until the vehicle actually is entering the roadway pavement of Rockland Ave !


Adequate sight distance            Inadequate sight distance: sight obscured

 

The sight distance works both ways.  The exiting driver’s visibility must enable him to see oncoming traffic and the oncoming driver must have sufficient view of traffic entering the road to be able to take action to avoid a collision. 

In addition, the same adequate visibility in both directions must be available to pedestrians to enable them to safely cross Rockland Avenue.  Between Gillespie and Oak Bay Avenue there is a sidewalk on the south side only of Rockland. Most of that section of Rockland Avenue is dangerous to cross.  There is only one cross walk (at Joan Cres.) and one stop sign (at St Charles). Pedestrians crossing Rockland anywhere other than Joan or St. Charles are at risk. 

As shown in the table below, Rockland Avenue traffic going east or west in optimum driving conditions, at the existing speed limit, has barely enough space to take action to avoid a collision, or stop, when encountering a vehicle exiting from gates 2 and 3.   Drivers exceeding the speed limit do not have adequate opportunity to take action.  An exiting driver, with no sightline whatsoever, has no opportunity to avoid a collision with oncoming traffic on the road until the exiting driver partially enters the roadway to look in both directions.

kph    fps    stopping  distance
0.8 cf     add 1 sec reaction time    est. stopping distance
0.8 cf    est. stopping distance
0.6 cf    est. stopping distance
0.4 cf    example
minimum sight distance
70    112    205 ft    112    317 ft    475 ft    634 ft    325 ft
60    97    150 ft    97    247 ft    370 ft    494 ft    280 ft
50    81    104 ft    81    185 ft    278 ft    370 ft    235 ft
40    64    67 ft    64    131 ft    196 ft    262 ft    190 ft
30    48    38 ft    48    86 ft     129 ft    172 ft    140 ft
20    32    17 ft    32    49 ft    74 ft    98 ft    95 ft
 

Many factors influence the coefficient of friction (cf) factors shown above.  The above coefficient of friction factor of 0.8 relates to good/optimum driving conditions (dry pavement, good tires and brakes, daylight).  Factor 0.4 relates to poor conditions (wet pavement, adverse conditions, poor tires etc).  In addition, a reaction time of one second is at the optimistic end of the scale.  Many factors can negatively influence reaction time (age, eyesight, distractions, driving experience and competence etc).

Comments Regarding the East End of Rockland Avenue

The above discussion focuses on the GH related traffic issues.  Similar circumstances are encountered on the east end of Rockland Avenue, from Oak Bay Ave. to Gonzales Ave.  where there is a series of sharp bends in the road.  There are many private driveways in that section and many of them are almost blind access points.  The recommended speed in that area is 20 kph.  The rationale is very similar to the GH section of Rockland Avenue … impeded sightlines (blocked view and road curves) and traffic (the east end of Rockland Ave. has several blind driveways and access side roads).

Preliminary Conclusion

The above discussion is a layperson’s view based on practical experience and research.  All numbers and values are reasonable. 

RNA’s goal is make Rockland Avenue safe.  The goal is not to sporadically penalize speeding drivers … but to eliminate speeding permanently.

This project is likely to conclude that the only effective tool to calm the traffic on Rockland Avenue is the installation of multiple speed-bumps constructed so as to not impede traffic flowing at 30-35 kph but, by design, discourage traffic in direct proportion to their speed over 35kph.  If so, speed-bumps would likely be necessary in the whole section from Oak Bay Avenue to Moss Street, if not to Cook Street.

In addition because the City has done little or no meaningful study of Rockland traffic nor conducted a road safety audit by an independent, professional, fully qualified road engineer, such an audit is overdue.

APPROACH

The table below summarises the preliminary input received to date. 

It is a start in developing a project action plan … identifying what needs to be done to develop RNA’s case, the resources needed, and how the action can be assigned … to who, when and how …

More input is needed.  


PROJECT
COMPONENTS    COMMENTS
Define the project scope    •    The project will focus on reducing speeding on Rockland Avenue.
•    Richardson St is the border between Rockland and Fairfield.  The Rockland project might affect traffic on Richardson.  Therefore the RNA transportation Committee will engage FGCA and keep FGCA informed on the project … to keep both Rockland and Fairfield/Gonzales safe, and for FGCA’s support, resources, involvement, and action.
Research    •    Determine if by-laws exist for vehicular traffic on Rockland Avenue traffic, and if so, whether weight and size limits are specified.
•    Identify the variations in the posted speed limits (30 kph throughout Rockland Avenue, plus two 20 kph (advisory) bends
•    Review the legal safety requirements for sight-lines and access to exit or enter Government House grounds and the single existing cross-walk in view of its location and traffic speed and for private driveways.  Poor sight lines on local roads in the GVA are not uncommon but the safety issue remains.
•    Obtain copies of the City of Victoria’s traffic studies done to date as well as subsequent action taken to control traffic.  Inventory Victoria Police Department speeding studies and/or speed/ticketing actions.
•    Research Rockland Ave accident history including incidents related to GH traffic / gates
•    Obtain a copy of the latest Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP – 1999).
•    Explore physical road surface alterations and/or additions to slow traffic: speed bumps between Cook Street and Oak Bay Avenue.  The cost is $5,000 each charged to residents, unless the request is incorporated into the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan, next iteration to be developed within five years).  The posting of digital speed readers on the 30 KM-street signs; the cost is $4,500 each, rechargeable battery-operated.  Deer-crossing and Slow Down signs.  
•    Point out the substantial revenue potential of fining speeder to VPD and the City of Victoria (income is shared with the Province, City and VPD).
•    Identify areas where parking is a safety factor and follow up.
Action    Develop resources or City staff or volunteer VPD resources to:

•    List habitual corporate speeders curbside.
•    Photograph speeding vehicles license plates and send these to the VPD.
•    Report a violation to the VPD so as to initiate a warning letter, a visit or a charge.  NB:  this has been made exceedingly cumbersome (to discourage citizens) by imposing a 24-hour minimum delay on reporting!
•    Implement an RNA membership campaign to engage a larger target portion of Rockland residents for support
•    Put hay for the deer and grain for the ducks along the curb (as a last resort if nothing else works over time)

    Volunteers  (commitment of 3 months minimum, or …)
•    letter writers
•    commuter slow-down drivers (to and from work times, as well as other times)
•    monitors of commercial company speed violators
•    photographers relaying speeding vehicle photos to VPD
•    residents monitoring agendas and attending/observing related meetings (e.g., City Council)

Community Engagement    •    Raise awareness of excessive speed violations and traffic volumes.
•    Question: with whom and why?  Speed limit signs are posted; speeding is against the law; the Mayor doesn’t care and the Police lacks staff.  Corporate heads/managers? and/or the Media? 
•    Awareness of the RNA community … are the residents aware of their own speeding ?  Are they aware of RNA initiative to calm the traffic ?
•    RNA is a small group with a small membership who have the responsibility of representing the whole community … suggest that the community should be aware and hopefully they all support the initiative … keep them engaged from day one, at least so residents of the community are forewarned and don’t get fined, penalty points and ICBC increases … if they get ticketed after being forewarned it’s their own fault.  All this interfaces with Communications below.
•    Involve residents in consistent, on-going traffic slow-downs by driving at the posted speeds on Rockland Avenue during commuter hours.  Needs discussion and consultation … in the ‘90s Burnside-Gorge residents in the Washington St area, irate about commuters using the residential street for a Gorge Rd / Burnside shortcut blocked the street until the City blocked it off (approx half way) with concrete planters.  Mayor Fortin was BGCA Exec Dir. at the time.
•    Engage Govt House … positioning of entrance and exit roads as well as Govt House related visitor traffic and pedestrians are significant influences on almost all aspects of Rockland traffic

Communications    •    what … when … by who … to who …
•    Frequently write letters to authorities continuously and follow up (Mayor of Victoria, the Lieutenant-Governor, Victoria Police Department Chief and Traffic Sergeant, ICBC) requesting action. 
•    Invite the local media to bring out a NewsHour camera (around Municipal election time might be useful) crew and inform the City and VPD. 
•    Email commercial company management about their speeding employees, copying the Mayor and the VPD (DHL, Loomis, Canada Post, Air-Porter, School Bus, all Tourism buses, taxis, Handy-Darts, Big Brother, gardening services, heavy trucks, City vehicles, etc.)   RNA has the experience in two instances … DHL and Prices Locks took notice of emails from Aimee (DHL) and Norman (Prices) and now comply.
•    Write letters to local newspapers and magazines about speeding companies who choose not to heed requests for compliance, urging boycotts, and about inaction by officials and VPD.
•    Prepare form letters for residents to sign, expressing concern and copying the Mayor and VPD on each one.

Project timeframe    Duration
Strategy and Action Plan implementation upon approval of the RNA Board of Directors and recruitment of volunteers, until the desired effects have been achieved.  (to be identified, such as:  traffic calming features installed if recommended, posted speeds are observed to “X” degree, traffic volume has decreased, etc.).