Full Text
Program Category: 08 Project # 09 Project # 10 Project # Street Improvements S-01 S-18 S-01 Yes No NA X Funding Source Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Assessments/residents 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 212,500 General Fund/CIP 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 106,500 DEQ Grant 50,000 ISTEA/CMAQ Grant 10,200 - 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 379,200 Budgeted Funds Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 A. Land Cost B. Construction Cost 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 194,846 C. Contingencies (10% of B) - 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 19,485 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 29,227 E. Percent for Art of B) F. Equipment Costs G. Other - 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 243,558 Expense Object Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Personnel Supplies Purchased Services Fixed Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service - - - - - - Responsible Person: Responsible Department: Preparer's Initials Total Score Phil Smith Public Works CJK 46 Is this equipment prioritized on an equipment replacement schedule? Are there any site requirements: How is this project going to be funded: Does this project have any additional impact on the operating budget: How is this project going to be spent: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2010-2014 Description and justification of project and funding sources: These projects demonstrated effectiveness slowing motorized traffic and enhancing non-motorized travel, reducing auto-generated air pollution, improving the efficiency of traffic flow, and preserving the residential character of neighborhood streets. Finished circles have been installed at more than 40 intersections in the city, most with the help of city CIP funds. This CIP request includes City funding to match the residents' SID funding, for potential projects in FY11. Have customarily budgeted $18,000 CIP funds to match residents' funding. With funding reserves from prior allocations, plans are to proceed with projects for both Phillips and Pattee Creek. Petitions for creation of SID will be received this spring, Council approves creating an SID, and construction. Construction on Phillips will begin late summer because the street is due for chip-sealing. Spent in Prior Years OPERATING BUDGET COSTS Spent in Prior Years Funded in Prior Years REVENUE EXPENSE Project Title: Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming Date Submitted to Finance 02/11/2009 Today's Date and Time 06/03/2009 13:18 Description of additional operating budget impact: City participates in traffic calming projects by limited pavement removal, sump moving as needed, engineering, installation of temporary devices, and painting and striping. For this coming year participation is estimated to be $4,000. This amount will be accommodated with existing budgets. ---PAGE BREAK--- Program Category: 10 Project # Street Improvements S-01 Yes No 1. Is the project necessary to meet federal, state, or local legal requirements? This cri- terion includes projects mandated by Court Order to meet requirements of law or other X requirements. Of special concern is that the project be accessible to the handicapped. 2. Is the project necessary to fulfill a con- tractual requirement? This criterion includes Federal or State grants which require local X participation. Indicate the Grant name and number in the comment column. 3. Is this project urgently required? Will de- lay result in curtailment of an essential ser- vice? This statement should be checked "Yes" only if an emergency is clearly indi- X cated; otherwise, answer "No". If "Yes", be sure to give full justification. 4. Does the project provide for and/or im- prove public health and/or public safety? This criterion should be answered "No" un- less public health and/or safety can be X shown to be an urgent or critical factor. Raw Score Total Range Weight Score (0-3) 5. Does the project result in maximum benefit to the community from the 3 5 15 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 2 4 8 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 2 4 8 services are recognized and accepted as being necessary and effective? (0-3) 9. Does the project specifically relate to the City's strategic planning priorities or other 3 4 12 plans? Total Score 46 Applicant neighborhoods customarily feel that their traffic improvements are urgently needed. Air quality will benefit; energy will be conserved; the bicycling/pedestrian environment will be enhanced. With the visible demonstrated success of traffic calming in several locations, other residents are insisting on traffic calming to address their concerns. Many residents feel that managing residential traffic is an essential service. We have been repeatedly asked to make Missoula safer for biking and walking, and reduce the volumes and speeds of traffic on many residential streets. Traffic calming has been a specific planning objective in past City Strategic Plans. Quantitative Analysis Comments At current cost estimates, one requested CIP dollar will leverage at least two residents' dollars. A similar program in Seattle resulted in a 94% reduction in accidents...a high benefit. Traffic calming is neighborhood responsive; a major benefit is improved neighborhood livability and confidence in local government. We receive new requests for traffic calming every year; each request is deemed urgent by the applicant neighborhood. The primary reason residents state for requesting traffic calming is to increase safety on their residential streets. Slowing traffic, especially at intersections, materially improves safety for both motorists and pedestrians. A preliminary survey of crash data for the two years prior and two years after the devices in the University Area shows a reduction from 38 crashes to 17. There were 17 t-bone (right angle crashes) prior, there were 6 after installation, none of which were at intersections with circles. Though not legally required, the project will improve air quality, conserve energy, mitigate traffic congestions, improve neighborhood safety. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Project Rating Project Title: Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming ---PAGE BREAK--- FY2010 CIP# S-01 Pre- circles Post circles Per cent reduction Cost savings per Monaco figures Benefit/co st (Public cost of $18,000) Cost savings per Jomini Benefit/co st (Public cost of $18,000) Total crashes 36 17 53 $551,000 30:01:00 $396,000 22:01 Right angle crashes 18 5 72 $377,000 21:01 $286,000 16:01 PRELIMINARY COST / BENEFIT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC CALMING IN MISSOULA In June, 2001 the City installed traffic circles at nine intersections in the university area, in a pattern of roughly one every other intersection. The total project cost $50,095, of which $18,000 was City funds. During the 31 months prior to installation, there were 36 motor vehicle crashes, of which 18 were right-angle (t-bone) crashes. During the 31 months following installation, there were 17 motor vehicle crashes, of which 5 were right angle (t-bone) crashes. The “cost value” of a crash varies widely, considering these factors: specifics of the particular crash, costs in a particular part of the state or country, inclusion of appropriate other factors (economic loss, personal injury, property damage, cost of public services such as police or fire, and administrative costs). Mark Monaco of the Missoula Police Department has calculated that an average motor vehicle crash, attended by the Missoula Police, has a total cost of $29,000 – incorporating all the factors above. Pierre Jomini, the Montana Department of Transportation Safety Engineer, uses national cost data: a fatal injury crash million), an incapacitating injury crash ($210,000), a non-incapacitating injury crash ($42,000), a possible injury crash ($22,000), and a property-damage-only crash ($2300). In the table below, I’ve used Monaco’s numbers and the very conservative “possible injury crash” numbers from Jomini. We consider two different benefits: total crash reductions, and reduction in the more severe right-angle crashes. Conclusion: Using the conservative numbers (right angle crashes rather than total crashes, and Jomini’s costs rather than Monaco’s), the LEAST benefit/cost ration is 16:1. ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND: Phillips:Bulbouts – no support Vine/Monroe: Bulbout with median installed University area: 9 circles installed Evans: 1st three circles installed South U area: 13 circles installed 2007 S. 4th, Orange – Bulbouts at 2003. 2 circles installed 2006 Takima Dr: Circles requested; data didn't support Slant Streets: 7 permanent traffic circles installed 2006 Hickory area: 4 permanent circles installed 2005 Wyoming: data didn’t support and S/W needed S. 4th,, Russell – RR: 2 permanent circles Jefferson School area: temporary circles effective but no neighborhood support Christian Dr: 6 median-bulbouts installed Clearview: permanent circle installed Mount: 2 temporary bulbouts in place Traffic Calming applications 1996 - 2008 Polaris Way: data doesn’t justify action Pattee Creek Drive: temps unsuccessful River Road: pending road reconstruction Cottonwood/Rollins /Florence: data didn’t support 2004 Crestline/Highland Park, ap 2006. Need not TC installed Action pending Pattee Canyon ap 2005 Design/install 2007?