HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Motion to approve the Hatlen Heights neighborhood traffic-calming program on Audrey Lane, Hatlen Avenue, Grindel Drive, Connie Lane, and Meier Road.Subject
Meeting
Fiscal Impact (Y/N)
Dollar Amount
Budget Source
Category
Type
Information
Item Cover Page
Motion to approve the Hatlen Heights neighborhood traffic -
calming program on Audrey Lane, Hatlen Avenue, Grindel
Drive, Connie Lane, and Meier Road.
December 16, 2025 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT
PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD
Y
$355000.00
Capital Improvements Fund
OLD BUSINESS
Action Item
The Transportation Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to construct a traffic -
calming project within the Hatlen Heights Subdivision on Audrey Lane, Hatlen Avenue, Grindel
Drive, Connie Lane and Meier Road and approve associated traffic regulations. This is a second
reading of the proposed motion and ordinance. The first reading was held at the Regular
Meeting of the Village Board on December 2, 2025.
Proposed improvements recommended by the Transportation Safety Commission include:
• Mini -traffic circles at the intersection of Audrey Lane and Grindel Drive, as well as
Hatlen Avenue and Grindel Drive
• Speed feedback signs on Audrey Lane and Hatlen Avenue.
• All -way stop control at the intersection of Audrey Lane and Connie Lane with centerline
pavement markings on approach to the intersection.
• Pavement markings on Meier Road between Lincoln Street and Connie Lane to match
the pavement markings on Meier Road south of Lincoln Street.
This recommendation was approved by the Transportation Safety Commission at their
regularly scheduled meeting on September 8, 2025.
At the December 2, 2025, Village Board meeting, staff were also asked to consider comments
and suggestions derived from a neighborhood meeting hosted by Mayor Hoefert and Trustee
Dante on October 27, 2025. Staff did not attend this meeting. Summary notes for this
meeting were provided to staff on November 12, 2025. The comments and suggestions from
the neighborhood meeting in these notes are provided below in bold text. Staff responses are
provided for each comment and suggestion.
DISPOSITION OF COMMENTS / OCTOBER 27, 2025, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
GENERAL COMMENTS
Stop Waze and other mapping services from directing traffic to Audrey. Staff
contacted Waze and was advised that the company affirms the right to utilize any public right-
of-way as part of its mapping services. They refused to restrict traffic or eliminate the use of
Audrey or Hatlen in their route analysis algorithms.
Police won't issue speeding tickets unless speed exceeds 11 MPH over the limit. The
Police Department reports that Cook County Circuit Court judges routinely dismiss speeding
violations less than 9 mph over the posted limit. This inconvenient truth undoubtedly
contributes to higher speeds on Audrey and many other Village streets.
Empty School District 214 buses use Audrey for parking and/or staging. Staff
contacted the transportation managers at High School District 214 and at Community
Consolidated School District 59. They have been provided with a complete explanation of the
problem and a specific request to avoid using local streets for transit of empty buses without a
valid business purpose to do so.
Also, it is relevant to note that most regular -size school buses exceed the 6-ton (12,000
pounds) weight limit on Village streets. The Village Code carves out an exception for school
buses to operate on Village streets provided they are on routes to pick up or drop-off
students. If not, they can be ticketed for being overweight.
Shuttle buses and box trucks. Most commercial vehicles larger than a Ford F-350 pickup
truck exceed the 6-ton weight limit (i.e. F-450, Ram 4500/5500, Chevy Silverado 4500/5500
pick-up trucks and most box trucks longer than 16 feet). Unless these vehicles are driving to
or from a bona fide business appointment in the neighborhood, and they should be on the
shortest route between their destination and a truck route, they can be ticketed for violating
weight restrictions on Village streets.
Shuttle buses built on a van chassis with a 14-passenger capacity probably weigh less than 6
tons (unless they're fully loaded). They are not required to operate on truck routes and can
lawfully utilize any public street in the Village. Larger shuttles, like school buses, must have a
bona fide reason to be in the neighborhood and can be ticketed for overweight violations, just
like school buses.
Less general truck traffic occurring. Staff is unclear whether this comment is meant to
infer that there is currently less general truck traffic occurring or whether it is intended to
suggest that the neighborhood would like to see further reductions in general truck traffic.
However, the street, and almost all residential streets in the Village, have a 6-ton weight
limit.
Audrey at Grindel and Hatlen at Grindel / Same enforcement. Staff is unclear what this
comment means.
POTENTIAL MEASURES
No Through Traffic Sign at Central and Audrey / Install flashing lights on the sign.
There is an existing No Thru Traffic Sign at Central & Audrey. There is an identifiable sign at
Meier & Lincoln. These signs are advisory, not regulatory. In other words, they are not
enforceable. The Police Department cannot cite any driver for having an inappropriate origin
or destination. The signs can be lit. However, lighted signs tend to have impact for only a
short period of time and then become part of the background. Sign lighting could set an
unsustainable precedent to light other signs. Staff does not recommend lighting the No Thru
Traffic sign. However, at the direction of the Village Board, the sign can be lit.
Audrey / Install No Truck Traffic. The Village Code does not provide a unique, explicit
definition of a "truck" but rather adopts the definitions found in the State of Illinois statutes
and the Illinois Vehicle Code. The Illinois Vehicle Code says a truck is "Every motor vehicle
designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property." This definition isn't
very useful for law enforcement and is not very informative for drivers. Arguably, the law
sees no difference between a homeowner's pickup truck and a contractor's pickup truck. A
police officer enforcing a No Trucks sign in Hatlen Heights most likely needs to discern the
difference. Consequently, a No Trucks sign is not enforceable. However, there is an existing
6-ton weight limit sign at the Central Road intersections with Audrey and Hatlen. There is a
similar sign on Meier near Golf. This sign is enforceable. It prohibits vehicles weighing more
than 12,000 pounds from using the streets unless permitted or excepted by the Village Code.
Generally, the weight limit for all Village streets is 6 tons (1 ton is equivalent to 2,000
pounds). Examples of vehicles that typically exceed 12,000 pounds in gross vehicle weight
include:
Standard full-size school buses.
Box trucks (i.e., 16-26-foot delivery trucks).
F-450, Ram 4500/5500, and Chevy Silverado 4500/5500 pick-up trucks.
The Village Code exempts vehicles owned by government agencies. It also has an exemption
for school buses and moving trucks. However, the exemption contains a caveat. The school
bus or box truck must have a legitimate reason for operating on streets not designated as a
truck route and they must be operated on the shortest path between their point of origin or
destination and the nearest truck route. For reference, the relevant portion of the Village
Code is attached.
Staff recommends continued or increased enforcement of existing overweight regulations.
Staff does not object to the installation of a No Trucks sign with the understanding that the
sign in and of itself is not enforceable. It should also be noted that the Police Department
performed 207 hours of traffic enforcement on Audrey during July and August of this year.
They issued 10 speeding citations, 19 stop -sign citations, and only 1 overweight citation. This
activity summary suggests that there is a disparity between reported and observed overweight
vehicle experience.
Connie and Audrey / Install a 4-way stop. Staff concurs with this recommendation. The
current traffic -calming plan, approved by the Transportation Safety Commission and presented
for the Village Board's consideration on December 2nd, includes a 4-way stop at Connie and
Audrey.
Connie and Hatlen / Install a 4-way stop. This intersection is currently controlled by a 2-
way stop with stop signs installed on Connie. This intersection does not satisfy any of the
warrants for a multi -way stop sign provided in the Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). Pursuant to the Illinois Vehicle Code, the Village is obligated to comply with
the MUTCD. Furthermore, the Village Code adopts the Illinois Vehicle Code and the Illinois
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices by reference.
Staff does not recommend installing unwarranted stop signs for these reasons:
Installing an unwarranted stop sign can create a safety hazard. If drivers do not encounter
opposing vehicles at an intersection at which they are required to stop, they will ultimately
disregard the stop sign. Sooner or later, a pedestrian, bicyclist, or vehicle will enter the
intersection expecting the oncoming vehicle to stop and yield the right of way but doesn't,
potentially resulting in a crash.
Installing unwarranted stop signs or other failures to comply with the MUTCD can result in
the loss of federal and state financial aid (grants) for transportation projects.
Unwarranted stop signs can be difficult to enforce. If a driver is cited for violating an
unwarranted stop sign, his or her attorney could prevail in court if it can be shown the stop
sign in question is unwarranted or does not comply with the MUTCD. The judge could
dismiss the case, essentially making that stop sign unenforceable.
Installing unwarranted stop signs increases the Village's legal liability. Attached for your
information, please find an opinion on this matter from risk attorneys at the
Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA). IRMA encourages the Village to
comply with MUTCD requirements.
Staff's recommendation is informed by the history of intersection control in the Hatlen
Heights neighborhood. For reference, a copy of the 2008 Zone 11 Intersection Traffic
Control Study is attached. This study was one of 18 completed over multiple years during
the early 2000s that standardized intersection controls, increased driver compliance, and
dramatically reduced accidents. Crashes on neighborhood streets were reduced by 50%.
Meier / Install a stop sign. Staff assumes this request refers to the Connie and Meier
intersection. This intersection is presently controlled by a stop sign on Connie. The
intersection does not satisfy MUTCD warrants for a multi -way stop. Furthermore, the MUTCD
stipulates that stop signs should control the minor road. Therefore, since Connie has lower
volume and Meier has a higher roadway classification, stopping Meier and freeing Connie
would also violate MUTCD tenets. Staff does not recommend a stop sign on Meier at Connie.
Connie and Meier / Install a No Right Turn sign. Staff assumes this request refers to
northbound Meier Road at eastbound Connie Lane. This request is similar in effect to partially
barricading Connie Lane at Meier Road, which staff believes would redistribute traffic to other
neighborhood streets. It is a stated goal of FNSP to avoid solving volume complaints on one
street by sending volume to other streets.
Therefore, a turn restriction at this intersection would prompt additional turn restrictions at
Bonita, Beverly, and Crestwood to prevent drivers from traveling down Lincoln to the next
available northbound street that can connect with Audrey or Hatlen. An idea like this was
previously considered in 1994. The idea was overwhelmingly rejected by neighborhood voters.
Staff does not recommend installing a No Right Turn sign at Meier and Connie because of the
potential impact on adjacent streets. However, if this idea is considered further, staff
recommends securing neighborhood opinions through polling and a temporary trial period.
Grindel and Audrey / Turn the stop signs or make the intersection a 4-way stop. As
explained previously, this intersection must comply with MUTCD requirements. It does not
satisfy the requirements for a multi -way stop. Also, "turning" the stop signs to control Audrey
is in violation of a MUTCD tenet to control the minor street.
Grindel and Hatlen / Turn the stop signs or make the intersection a 4-way stop.
Same answer as previous suggestion to install a 4-way stop or turn the stop signs at Grindel
and Audrey.
Slow traffic through the use of speed tables after trying the foregoing measures.
Speed tables, speed bumps, speed humps, and most other vertical traffic -calming devices
are not included in the Friendly Neighborhood Streets Program Toolbox approved by the
Village Board last year. This omission was prominently discussed prior to approval.
The exclusion of vertical traffic -calming devices from the current traffic -calming toolbox is
informed by the Village's experience with speed humps installed on See Gwun Avenue, slower
response times for Police and Fire, and resident dissatisfaction. For additional information, a
copy of a 2007 report summarizing the See Gwun speed hump experiment is attached.
Although effective at reducing speed and volume, vertical devices, like the most effective
horizontal traffic -calming devices (i.e., medians) eventually become cumbersome to drivers
who live on the street and must traverse them every day.
In addition, it is significant to note that speed humps are not widely utilized in the north and
northwest suburbs. The attached 2025 Northwest Municipal Conference survey result
indicates that only 2 out of 25 survey respondents utilize speed humps as traffic control
devices.
Speed humps and/or other vertical traffic -calming devices can be reconsidered at the Village
Board's direction.
BACKGROUND
In 2022 and 2023, the Public Works Department Engineering Division conducted multiple
traffic studies on Audrey Lane at the request of a resident to quantify perceived traffic issues
and to determine if the street was eligible for traffic -calming measures. The studies
determined the street was not eligible based on the criteria of the original Traffic Calming
Program (adopted in 2011) but the Transportation Safety Commission charged the
Engineering Division in the summer of 2023 with reviewing and updating the traffic -calming
program as appropriate. While the program was being updated, Public Works installed radar
speed feedback signs as an interim measure to address speeding concerns on the street. The
new traffic -calming program, the Friendly Neighborhood Streets Program, was adopted by the
Village Board in May 2024.
A petition for a traffic -calming project on the 0 and 100 blocks of Audrey Lane was submitted
to Public Works on October 2, 2024. This came after the Friendly Neighborhood Streets
Program was adopted and with the speed feedback signs in place. Based on the traffic data
collected after installation of the speed feedback signs, the street did not qualify to be included
in the new Program. However, staff agreed to consider the traffic data prior to installation of
the speed feedback signs and consider a new traffic -calming project. The traffic data prior to
installation of the speed feedback signs did qualify the street to be included in the new
Program.
After receiving the petition, staff advanced the project through the Friendly Neighborhood
Streets Program process, expanding the limits to include additional streets in the Hatlen
Heights Subdivision. The focus of the process has been to consider traffic -calming measures
that will reduce vehicle speeds while discouraging through traffic. The Police Department,
Fire Department, and Public Works Department do not support closing streets that will limit
access and redistribute traffic in the neighborhood. The Village tried closing Connie Lane at
Meier Road in the mid-1990s but was determined not to be an effective solution. Therefore,
staff concentrated on speed reduction measures for the neighborhood.
The process has included traffic studies, alternative analysis, preferred design development
and multiple public meetings. Residents within the study area were mailed information on the
project four times, including surveys and ballots. Additionally, a traffic -calming trial was
installed in May 2025 and remained in place for three weeks to allow residents to experience
proposed improvements and for staff to evaluate their effectiveness. The speed feedback
signs on Audrey Lane were turned off during the trial.
More project information is available on the project website, including design memos, plans
and public outreach summaries.
https : //www. mou ntprospect. orq/depa rtments/pu bl ic-works/eng i neeri ng/trafficltraffic-
calming/hatlen-heights-neighborhood-traffic-calming-study
It should be noted that the Friendly Neighborhood Streets Program emphasizes public input
throughout the process. In addition to the plethora of documents and information available on
the project's webpage, the process included at least six formal opportunities for public
involvement. Solicitations for public input are summarized on the attached Hatlen Heights
Formal Outreach spreadsheet. It is relevant to note that 147 door hanger flyers were hand -
delivered to inform residents that the Village Board was going to consider the traffic -calming
plan approved by the Transportation Safety Commission at the board's December 2 meeting,
garnering a 3-person turnout (2 against the proposed plan, 1 with a general comment).
Traffic counts recorded 8% of vehicles traveling over 35 mph on the street, or about 75
vehicles per day, prior to any traffic -calming. The traffic -calming trial showed that the
proposed traffic -calming measures reduced the percentage of vehicles traveling over 35 mph
on the street to 2%, or 25 vehicles per day. The trial showed the proposed traffic -calming
measures would successfully address the reported traffic concerns. However, the measures,
as tried, resulted in loss of on -street parking adjacent to the mid -block median islands that the
residents on the street were vocally against. Therefore, staff adjusted the traffic -calming plan
in response to residents' comments.
Staff's recommended traffic -calming plan was presented to the Transportation Safety
Commission at their September 8thmeeting. This included:
• Mini -traffic circles at the intersection of Audrey Lane and Grindel Drive as well as Hatlen
Avenue and Grindel Drive.
• Speed feedback signs on Audrey Lane and Hatlen Avenue.
• All -way stop control at the intersection of Audrey Lane and Connie Lane with centerline
pavement markings on approach to the intersection.
• Pavement markings on Meier Road between Lincoln Street and Connie Lane to match
the pavement markings on Meier Road south of Lincoln Street.
After discussion and resident input, the Commission voted to approve staffs recommendations
and submit them to the Village Board for approval.
Discussion
Following discussion at the December 2, 2025, Village Board meeting, staff has developed
additional options for the Village Board's consideration. These options are based on
comments and suggestions made by Village Board members and residents in attendance.
Staff Amendment to TSC Plan. This is the original TSC-approved plan discussed on
December 2 but amended to include a No Trucks sign on Audrey at Central and the addition
of a permanent curb bump -out at the southeast corner of Meier Road and Connie Lane. This
recommendation incorporates the tenets of the original recommendation approved by the
Transportation Safety Commission, including:
• New speed feedback signs on Hatlen Avenue and relocated speed feedback signs on
Audrey Lane to better control speeds mid -block in conjunction with the mini traffic
circles at intersections.
• New mini -traffic circles at the intersections of Audrey Lane and Hatlen Avenue with
Grindel Drive to slow drivers through the intersections.
• Convert the intersection of Audrey Lane and Connie Lane to All -Way Stop Control to
control left -turning vehicle conflicts.
• New pavement marking parking lanes and center lines on Meier Road to visually
narrow the roadway, slowing vehicles and increasing safety.
VB Option 1 includes the addition of a No Trucks sign on Hatlen at Central, a 4-way stop at
Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel, and a new permanent curb bump -out to slow
drivers at Meier and Connie. Staff does not recommend the use of unwarranted 4-way stop
signs.
VB Option 2 includes the addition of a No Trucks sign on Hatlen at Central, a 4-way stop at
Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel, mid -block speed humps installed on Audrey
and Hatlen (a total of 4 speed humps), and a new permanent curb bump -out to slow drivers
at Meier and Connie. Staff does not recommend unwarranted stop signs or the use of speed
humps.
VB Option 3 includes the addition of a No Trucks sign on Hatlen at Central, a 2-way stop at
Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel (Grindel is stopped - no change from existing
conditions), speed humps installed on Audrey and Hatlen (a total of 7 speed humps), and a
new permanent curb bump -out to slow drivers at Meier and Connie. Staff does not
recommend the use of speed humps.
VB Trustee Dante Recommendation includes one speed hump in the zero block of Audrey,
a 4-way stop at Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel, and the installation of a No
Thru Traffic sign at Connie and Meier. Staff does not recommend the use of unwarranted 4-
way stop signs or the use of speed humps.
Do Nothing. As an initial traffic -calming measure, radar speed feedback signs were installed
on Audrey last year. A subsequent traffic study indicated that traffic no longer meets the
minimum criteria to qualify for the Friendly Neighborhood Streets Program. The graphs below
(and attached) depict the change in metrics over time. The neighborhood could be left as is
and monitored for future performance changes. Staff has no comment on this option.
Any requisite traffic ordinance changes will be presented at a future Village Board meeting.
After the traffic -calming measures have been in place and traffic patterns have normalized,
staff will conduct a post -study on the street to determine the effectiveness of the traffic -
calming project. This post -study will be compiled into a memo and sent to the Transportation
Safety Commission and the Village Board. The post -study will also be made available to the
public on the project website. Staff will evaluate the results the traffic -calming measures had
on speed, vehicle volumes, and safety to determine if additional traffic -calming measures are
warranted or if changes are needed to the traffic -calming project. Should changes be
warranted, staff will bring the project back to the Transportation Safety Commission for
discussion, inviting neighborhood residents to participate, before sending proposed changes
to the Village Board for consideration.
Alternatives
1. Approve Staff Amendment to TSC Plan - the original TSC-approved plan discussed on
December 2 amended to include a No Trucks sign on Audrey at Central and the addition
of a permanent curb bump -out at the southeast corner of Meier Road and Connie Lane.
2. Approve VB Option 1 — includes the addition of a No Trucks sign on Hatlen at Central, a
4-way stop at Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel, and a new permanent
curb bump -out to slow drivers at Meier and Connie.
3. Approve VB Option 2 — includes the addition of a No Trucks sign on Hatlen at Central, a
4-way stop at Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel, mid -block speed humps
installed on Audrey and Hatlen (a total of 4 speed humps), and a new permanent curb
bump -out to slow drivers at Meier and Connie.
4. Approve VB Option 3 — includes the addition of a No Trucks sign on Hatlen at Central, a
2-way stop at Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel (Grindel is stopped - no
change from existing conditions), speed humps installed on Audrey and Hatlen (a total
of 7 speed humps), and a new permanent curb bump -out to slow drivers at Meier and
Connie.
5. Approve VB Trustee Dante Recommendation - includes one speed hump in the zero
block of Audrey, a 4-way stop at Audrey and Grindel and at Hatlen and Grindel, and the
installation of a No Thru Traffic sign at Connie and Meier.
6. Do Nothing. As an initial traffic -calming measure, radar speed feedback signs were
installed on Audrey last year. A subsequent traffic study indicated that traffic no longer
meets the minimum criteria to qualify for the Friendly Neighborhood Streets Program.
The attached graphs depict the change in metrics over time. The neighborhood could
be left as is and monitored for future performance changes.
7. Action at the discretion of the Village Board.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Village Board approve the recommendation of the Transportation
Safety Commission for traffic -calming in the Hatlen Heights subdivision amended to include
the addition of a No Trucks sign on Audrey Lane at Central Road and to include the addition of
a permanent curb bump -out on the southeast corner of Meier Road and Connie Lane.
Attachments
1. zone 11 intersection study
2. zone 11 intersection post -study 1
3. zone 11 intersection post -study 2
4. seegwun speed hump final report 08-16-2007
5. IRMA Opinion on Unwarranted Stop Signs
6. Public Outreach Sumary
7. Speed Hump Survey, Park Ridge
8. audrey traffic data chart
9. 01- Original TSC Approved Hatlen Heights Traffic Calming Plan
10. Staff Amended TSC Recommendation
11. VB Option 1
12. VB Option 2
13. VB Option 3
14. VB Trustee Dante
Intersection Traffic Control Study
Zone 11
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect
By Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc.
Intersection Traffic Control Study
Zone I I
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect
By Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc.
Rosemont, Illinois
February 2008
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables, ii
1.
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
2.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS..............................................................................................................2
Study Area and Existing Land Uses.........................................................................................2
ExistingRoadway System........................................................................................................3
Existing Intersection Traffic Control........................................................................................3
Functional Classification of the Roadway System...................................................................3
IntersectionAccident Data.......................................................................................................4
ExistingTraffic Volumes.........................................................................................................4
Intersection Sight Distance Evaluation.....................................................................................4
Summary of the Existing Conditions........................................................................................ 5
3.
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL CRITERIA....................................................................6
Village of Mount Prospect Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program ........................6
2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) ................................................ 7
H
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION............................................................................11
Review of the Functional Classification of the Roadway System .......................................... I I
Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation - All -Way Stop Sign Control...................................13
Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation - Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control................14
Recommended Intersection Traffic Control Plan...................................................................15
Summary of Recommended Intersection Traffic Control Plan..............................................17
Implementation of Recommended Intersection Traffic Control Plan....................................17
5.
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................21
Residential Intersection Traffic 1 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
List of Figures and Tables
Tables in Report
1. Existing and Recommended Intersection Traffic Control.....................................................16
Figures
All figures are located in the Appendix.
F-1 Location of Zone 11..........................................................................................................22
F-2 Existing Intersection Traffic Control................................................................................23
F-3 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes........................................................................................24
F-4 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................25
F-5 Existing and Recommended Roadway Classification System..........................................26
F-6 Recommended Intersection Traffic Control......................................................................27
F-7 Existing and Recommended Intersection Traffic Control................................................28
Tables in Appendix
Each of the 77 intersections has a separate page within the Appendix containing each of the
following tables.
Table 1 Existing Intersection Characteristics
Table 2 All -Way Stop Sign Control Evaluation
Table 3 Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control Evaluation
Residential Intersection Traffic 11 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
I*
Introduction
The Village of Mount Prospect has embarked on a Village -wide study of the traffic operations
within the Village's residential neighborhoods. In order to accomplish this task, the Village has
initiated three preliminary traffic programs which are intent on providing a higher level of
standardization, increase driver expectation and enhance safety as it pertains to traffic
regulations. The three programs are the Residential Speed Limit Program, the Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Program and the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program.
The objective of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program is to ultimately review,
evaluate and determine the appropriate traffic control signage at all of the intersections under the
jurisdiction of the Village and standardize their implementation. Each intersection will be
studied based on accepted engineering practices, conformity with the 2003 Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the criteria established by the Village in its
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program. Due to the size of the Village and complexity
of the program, the Village has been divided into eighteen different zones, with Zone 11 the
focus of this study.
This study summarizes the results and findings of Zone ll of the Residential Intersection Traffic
Control Program. Zone 11 is bounded by Central Road and the Mount Prospect/Arlington
Heights border on the north, Busse Road on the east, Golf Road on the south and the Mount
Prospect/Arlington Heights border on the west. The neighborhood consists of a total of
77 intersections under the jurisdiction of the Village of Mount Prospect and contains Forest View
Elementary School, Holmes Junior High, and Clearwater Park. Zone 11 is shown in Figure 1.
(All of the figures for this study are provided at the end of the report.)
The objectives of this study were to: (1) inventory and examine the existing operational
characteristics of the zone and roadway system, (2) develop the criteria in which to evaluate the
intersection traffic control and (3) examine the existing conditions of each intersection and the
overall zone and recommend the appropriate intersection traffic control.
Residential Intersection Traffic 1 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
2.
Existing Conditions
Transportation conditions within Zone 11 were inventoried to obtain a database for evaluating
the existing operation of each intersection and the overall roadway system. The components of
existing conditions that were inventoried within the zone included:
• Existing land uses
• Physical and operating characteristics of the roadways
• Existing intersection traffic control
• Functional classifications of the roadways
Accident data at each intersection
• Daily and peak hour traffic volumes on the roadways
Available sight distance at each intersection
Study Area and Existing Land Uses
Zone 11 is bounded by Central Road and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights border on the
north, Busse Road on the east, Golf Road on the south and the Mount Prospect/Arlington
Heights Road border on the west. The zone has a total of 77 intersections under the jurisdiction
of the Village. Single family homes are the predominant land use within the zone. Forest View
Elementary School is located in the middle of the zone south of Estates Drive at Deborah Lane
and Holmes Junior High School is located in the south portion of the zone in the northeast corner
of the Meier Road/Lonnquist Boulevard intersection. Clearwater Park is located in the southeast
end of the zone.
Residential Intersection Traffic 2 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Existing Roadway System
As indicated, Central Road, Busse Road, and Golf Road form three of the four boundaries of the
zone. Central Road and Golf Road are under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT) and are arterial roads that have four -lane cross sections. Busse Road is a
arterial road that has a two-lane cross section and is under the jurisdiction of the Cook County
Highway Department. Traffic signal control is provided at the intersections of Busse Road with
Central Road, Busse Road with Lincoln Street, Busse Road with Golf Road, and Golf Road with
Meier Road.
Not including the external arterial roads, (Central Road, Busse Road, and Golf Road), the zone
has a total of 23 north -south roadways and 21 east -west roadways. All of the roadways in the
zone provide one lane in each direction with parking generally permitted on both sides of the
road. However, it should be noted that parking restrictions are provided on several of the
roadways within the zone. The speed limits within the zone range from 20 to 30 mph.
Existing Intersection Traffic Control
Figure 2 shows the existing intersection traffic control within the zone. The following provides a
summary of the existing traffic control at the 77 intersections within the zone under the
jurisdiction of the Village.
• Four All -Way Stop Sign Controlled Intersections
• Thirty -Five Two -Way or One-way Stop Sign Controlled Intersections
• Two Yield Sign Controlled Intersections
• Thirty -Seven Intersections with No Intersection traffic control
Functional Classification of the Roadway System
All of the roadways within the zone are classified as either collector roads and/or local roads.
The Village currently classifies Lincoln Street, Lonnquist Boulevard, and Meier Road as
collector roads, with the rest of the roadways classified as local roads.
Residential Intersection Traffic 3 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Intersection Accident Data
KLOA, Inc. obtained the accident data for the roadways and intersections within the zone from
the Village of Mount Prospect for October 2004 through September 2007. A review of the
accident data shows that the intersections within the zone experience a very low number of
accidents. Approximately 90 percent of the intersections did not have a single accident over the
three year period. If an intersection had experienced any accidents, it averaged only one to two
accidents occurring over the three years. No more than two accidents occurred at an intersection
within one year.
Existing Traffic Volumes
In order to determine the existing daily and peak hourly traffic volumes on the area roadways,
KLOA, Inc. conducted daily traffic counts at 39 locations within the zone. In addition,
nine previous daily traffic counts conducted in the zone by the Village of Mount Prospect were
obtained for this study. Of the total traffic counts, 23 were conducted along the north -south
roadways and 25 were conducted along the east -west roadways. The KLOA, Inc. traffic counts
were conducted in October 2007 and the Village of Mount Prospect counts were conducted
during the past year. All of the traffic counts were conducted for a minimum of two days and
were broken down by direction and by hour. Figure 3 shows the two-way daily traffic volumes
and Figure 4 shows the one-way peak hourly volumes. (It should be noted that Figure 4 shows
the highest hourly volume during the day at each of the count locations.)
Intersection Sight Distance Evaluation
As part of the study, KLOA, Inc. physically examined the available sight distance at each
approach leg of all 77 intersections within the zone. Per the direction of the Village of Mount
Prospect, the sight distance criteria outlined in the MUTCD were used to evaluate each
intersection. The MUTCD provides the following guidelines when the cross traffic should be
stopped due to sight distance restrictions at an intersection.
"Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to
safely negotiate the intersection unless the cross traffic is also required to stop."
Given the age of the neighborhood and the mature bushes and trees, the sight distance at some
intersections within the zone is impaired by existing landscaping, fences and, in some limited
cases, homes. In all cases, the driver has a clear and unobstructed view of the cross traffic as the
motorist either (1) approaches the intersection and/or (2) after stopping moves forward without
entering the intersection. Therefore, all of the intersections within the zone have sufficient sight
distance to safely negotiate the various intersections.
Residential Intersection Traffic 4 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Summary of the Existing Conditions
A summary of the existing conditions of each intersection is provided in Table 1 of the
Appendix. A separate section within the Appendix has been provided for each of the
77 intersections.
Residential Intersection Traffic 5 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
3.
Intersection Traffic Control Criteria
In order to meet the goals of the Village to provide a higher level of standardization, increase
driver expectation and enhance safety as it pertains to neighborhood traffic flow, an "evaluation
criteria" was established which is to govern intersection traffic control within the Village.
The criteria were developed based on the guidelines established by the Village in its
Residential -Intersection Traffic Control Program and conformity with the 2003 MUTCD.
While the MUTCD provides criteria with specific benchmarks, many of the criteria are
subjective and are left to engineering judgment and practices.
Village of Mount Prospect Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program
In order to review all the residential intersection traffic control with the intent of providing a
higher level of standardization, the Village of Mount Prospect has developed the Residential
Intersection Traffic Control Program. This program provides the general criteria the Village
desires for the intersection traffic control within their residential areas. The following provides
the guidelines from the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program.
• To be consistent and meet a diver's expectation, all four -leg intersections will have
traffic control.
• To define the right-of-way and increase the level of standardization, all T-intersections
will have traffic control unless at the intersection of two local streets where one is a
cul-de-sac or dead end.
Residential Intersection Traffic 6 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
• To meet the criteria set forth in the 2003 MUTCD and increase the level of
standardization, Yield signs will not be used as traffic control devices at residential
intersections.
• Identify those intersections that meet the criteria for all -way stop signs.
• Consideration for one-way (T-intersection) and two-way (four -leg intersection) stop
signs must be given on an individual intersection level and neighborhood wide level.
Lastly, as a guideline, the program recommends that a local road have no more than 1,320 feet
(1/4 mile) of uninterrupted flow and that a collector road have no more then 2,640 feet (1/2 mile)
of uninterrupted flow. In summary, the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program
dictates that all residential intersections should be controlled by either two-way/one-way stop
sign control or all -way stop sign control and that all -way stop sign control only be implemented
at intersections that meet the 2003 MUCTD criteria.
2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
As defined in the 2003 MUTCD, which is the primary publication on traffic control standards,
"The purpose of traffic control devices, as well as the principles for their use, is to promote
highway safety and efficiency by providing for the orderly movement of all road users on streets
and highways throughout the nation."
The following outlines the MUTCD guidelines for the application of the stop signs, which is the
only intersection control permitted within the zone.
Stop Signs Applications
Guidance:
STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the
following conditions exist:
A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the
normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide a reasonable
compliance with the law;
B . Street entering a through highway or street;
C. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or
D. High speed, restricted view, or crash records that indicate a need for control by
the STOP sign.
Residential Intersection Traffic 7 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Standard:
Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion,
STOP signs shall not be installed at intersections where traffic control signals are
installed and operating except as noted in Section 4D.01.
Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary
traffic control zone purposes.
Guidance:
STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles
having to stop.
Once the decision has been made to install two-way stop sign control, the decision
regarding the appropriate street to stop should be based on engineering judgment. In most
cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped.
A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified by a traffic
engineering study.
Support:
The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the
appropriate street upon to install a STOP sign where two streets with relatively equal
volumes and/or characteristics intersect:
A. Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing
activity or school walking routes;
B. Stopping the direction that has obscured vision, dips or bumps that already require
drivers to use lower operating speeds;
C. Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow
approaching the intersection; and
D. Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic.
Residential Intersection Traffic 8 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Multiway Stop Applications
Support:
Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic
conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multiway stops include pedestrians,
bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multiway stop control is
used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.
The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described previously also apply to multiway
stop applications.
Guidance:
The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering study.
The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway
STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure
that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made
for the installation of the traffic control signal.
B. A crash problem, as indicated by five or more reported crashes in a 12-month
period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation.
Such crashes include right and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C . Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per
hour for any eight hours of an average day, and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the
intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours, with an
average delay to minor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per
vehicle during the highest hour, but
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 65
km/h or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70
percent of the above values.
Residential Intersection Traffic 9 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all
satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this
condition.
Option:
Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left -turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high
pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is
not able to safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also
required to stop; and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of
similar design and operating characteristics where multiway stop control would
improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.
Residential Intersection Traffic 10 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
4.
Evaluation and Recommendation
Development of the intersection traffic control plan involves a comprehensive evaluation of each
intersection along with the existing overall operating conditions of the zone. Any intersection
traffic control plan must consider typical neighborhood issues, such as the functional
classification, cut -through traffic, speeding, traffic calming, neighborhood circulation and
land use impacts. As such, a systematic approach was employed that examined the zone from
the inside (each individual intersection) and outside (the overall zone).
The first step was to evaluate the existing functional classification of the roadways within the
zone and determine if any modifications were necessary. The second step was to evaluate the
physical and operating conditions of each intersection to determine if they meet any of the
warrants/requirements that control the installation of all -way stop sign control. Once the all -way
stop sign control intersections were identified, all of the other intersection are to be controlled via
one-way (T-intersections) or two-way (four -legged intersections) stop sign control. The last step
was to determine which road of the one-way and two-way stop sign control intersections is to be
under stop sign control.
Review of the Functional Classification of the Roadway System
The function of a roadway, whether it is located within a neighborhood or a commercial area, is
defined in traffic planning by a roadway hierarchy or functional classification system.
This system provides for three basic types of roadways; arterial, collector and local. The purpose
of defining the function of a road is to determine its length, speed limit, traffic control, access
and other general design standards. The definition for each of these three functional
classifications is as follows:
Residential Intersection Traffic 11 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
• Arterial: An arterial or primary road serves as the principle road for high -volume traffic
flow. The main function of an arterial road is that of traffic service and, as such, should
connect areas of principle traffic generation. Arterial roads typically form a reasonably
continuous and integrated system and include major roadways with significant length and
traffic carrying capacity.
• Collector: A collector or distributor road connects traffic between local and arterial
roads. Its function is to collect traffic from arterial roads and distribute it to local roads or
vice versa. Collector roads typically provide both land access and traffic service, but not
serve long distance travel demands.
• Local: A local road's sole function from a traffic planning standpoint is to provide access
to the land uses that abut it. Local roads should have short distances and should not be
designed to maximize traffic carrying capacity.
Residential neighborhood areas are typically surrounded by arterial roadways, with collector
roadways providing access into the area. Older neighborhoods were generally laid out in a
"grid" system. In this system it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two types of
functional classifications (collector/local). Consequently, not all residential roads are
"local roads."
Based on a review of the existing physical and operating characteristics of the roadways within
the zone and the land uses they serve, it is recommended that the following roadways should be
classified as collector roads (see Figure 5).
• Meier Road is a north -south road generally situated within the middle of the zone and is
the only road to provide continuity between Golf Road (arterial road) and Lincoln Street
(collector road). Furthermore, the importance of Meier Road in providing access to the
zone is evident in the fact that it is under traffic signal control at its intersection with Golf
Road. Lastly, it provides indirect access to Holmes Junior High School, Forest View
Elementary School, and Clearwater Park, three major generators in the zone. It should be
noted that Meier Road does extend north of Lincoln Street. However, it only extends for
several blocks and terminates approximately 1/4 of a mile north of Lincoln Street as a
cul-de-sac. Therefore, it is recommended that the portion of Meier Road north of Lincoln
Street be classified as a local road.
• Lincoln Street is an east -west road that is located in the northern third of the zone and
provides continuity through the zone connecting an arterial road (Busse Road) and a
collector road (Meier Road). Further, the importance of Lincoln Street in providing
access to the zone is evident in the fact that it is under traffic signal control at its
intersection with Busse Road. Lastly, Lincoln Street provides indirect access to Forest
View Elementary School, a major traffic generator in the zone.
Residential Intersection Traffic 12 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
• Lonnquist Boulevard is an east -west road situated within the southern portion of the zone
and provides continuity between an arterial road (Busse Road) and a collector road
(Meier Road). Further, Lonnquist Boulevard is classified as a collector road east of
Busse Road in both zones 12 and 14. Lastly, Lonnquist Boulevard provides direct access
to Holmes Junior High School and Clearwater Park and indirect access to Forest View
Elementary School, three major generators in the zone.
It should be noted that all three roads are currently classified as a collector road by the Village of
Mount Prospect.
Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation -All-Way Stop Sign Control
Once the functional classification of the roadway system was identified, the next step was to
evaluate each intersection as to the appropriate intersection traffic control. The first step was to
identify those intersections that meet the all -way stop sign control warrants and/or requirements.
The following summarizes the all -way stop sign control warrants/requirements as outlined in the
MUTCD and Section 3 of this report.
• Meets minimum traffic and pedestrian volume
• Meets the minimum number of intersection accidents
• Required to control left -turn conflicts
Required to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts
Required due to poor intersection sight distance
• Required to improve traffic operational characteristics of intersection of two collectors
with similar design and operating characteristics
The existing characteristics of each intersection were evaluated to determine if the existing
operation of the intersection met any of the warrants and/or requirements that control the
installation of an all -way stop sign control. Table 2 within the Appendix provides the results of
the all -way stop sign control evaluation. As indicated previously, a separate section within the
Appendix has been provided for each of the 77 intersections. Within each section of the
Appendix, Table 1 summarizes the existing characteristics of the intersections and Table 2
provides the results of the all -way stop sign control evaluation.
It has been determined that of the 77 intersections, a total of four intersections meet the all -way
stop sign control warrants/requirements. Three of the four intersections are currently under
all -way stop sign control and one of the four intersections is currently under one-way stop sign
control. It is recommended that the current all -way stop sign control at one other intersection be
removed and replaced with two-way/one-way stop sign control as it does not meet the all -way
stop sign control warrants/requirements. The following summarizes the all -way stop sign control
recommendations.
Residential Intersection Traffic 13 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Maintain Existing All -Way Stop Sign Control
1. Lincoln Street with Meier Road
2. Estates Drive with Crestwood Avenue
3. Lonnquist Boulevard with Crestwood Avenue
Add All -Way Stop -sign Control
Lonnquist Boulevard with Meier Road
Removal of Existing All -Way Stop Sign Control
As shown in Table 2 in the Appendix, one intersection does not meet any of the all -way stop sign
control warrants and/or requirements. The following outlines the intersection where the all -way
stop sign control is recommended to be removed and further indicates which road is
recommended to be under stop sign control.
Bonita Avenue with Hatlen Avenue (Bonita Avenue is recommended to remain under
stop sign control.)
Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation
Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control
Once the all -way stop sign control intersections were identified, according to the Residential
Intersection Traffic Control Program, all of the other intersections were to be controlled via
one-way (T-intersections) or two-way (four -legged intersections) stop sign control. Therefore,
the last step was to determine which road of the one-way and two-way stop sign control
intersections is to be under stop sign control. The criteria used in determining which road of an
intersection should be under stop sign control were based on the following.
The guidelines provided in the MUTCD, which is outlined in Section 3 of this report.
• Ensuring that local roads have less than 1,320 feet of uninterrupted flow as suggested in
the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program.
• If possible, maintaining which road is currently under traffic control (via either yield sign
or stop sign) at each intersection in order to minimize the change in the flow of traffic
through the zone.
Residential Intersection Traffic 14 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
For those intersections that will be under two-way/one-way stop sign control, the existing
characteristics of the intersections were evaluated to determine which road would be under stop
sign control. Table 3 in the Appendix provides the results of the two-way/one-way stop sign
control evaluation. As indicated previously, a separate section within the Appendix has been
provided for each of the 77 intersections.
Recommended Intersection Traffic Control Plan
Based on the above evaluation, the recommended intersection traffic control plan was developed
for Zone 11 and is shown in Figure 6. Of the 77 total intersections, traffic control modifications
are recommended at 38 intersections which are outlined below and shown in Figure 7. Lastly,
Table 1 provides a comparison of the existing and recommended traffic control in the zone.
Converting From All -Way Stop Sign Control to Two -Way Stop Sign Control
Bonita Avenue with Hatlen Avenue
Converting From Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control to All -Way Stop Sign Control
Lonnquist Boulevard with Meier Road
Changing the Road Which Will Be Under Stop Sign Control at an Existing Two-Way/One-
Way Stop Sign Control Intersections
1. Rusty Road with Crestwood Avenue
2. Martha Avenue with Crestwood Avenue
Converting from One -Way Stop Sign Control to Two -Way Stop Sign Control
Connie Lane with Audrey Lane
Converting from One-Way/Two-Way Yield Sign Control to
One-Way/Two Way Stop Sign Control
l . Bonita Avenue with Audrey Lane
2. Rusty Road with Hatlen Avenue
Converting Intersection with No Traffic Control to Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control
1. Grindle Drive with Audrey Lane
2. Grindle Drive with Hatlen Avenue
3. Connie Lane with Hatlen Avenue
Residential Intersection Traffic 15 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
4. Bonita Avenue with Verde Drive (East Leg)
5. Bonita Avenue with Verde Drive (West Leg)
6. Verde Drive with Michael Street
7. Hatlen Avenue with Beverly Lane
8. Hatlen Avenue with Crestwood Lane
9. Hatlen Avenue with Michael Street
10. White Oak Street with Hickory Avenue
11. White Oak Street with Leonard Avenue
12. White Oak Street with Prairie Avenue
13. Robbie Lane with Crestwood Avenue
14. Scott Terrace with Carol Lane
15. Haven Street with Helena Avenue
16. Rusty Road with Carol Lane
17. Rusty Road with Robbie Lane
18. Mark Terrace with Carol Lane
19. Kim Avenue with Hatlen Avenue
20. Kim Avenue with Crestwood Avenue
21. Lawrence Lane with Noah Terrace
22. Lawrence Lane with St. Celia Avenue
23. Estates Drive with Hatlen Avenue (West Leg)
24. Estates Drive with Hatlen Avenue (East Leg)
25. Myrtle Avenue with Crestwood Avenue
26. Myrtle Avenue with Hatlen Avenue
27. Prendergast Lane with Noah Terrace
28. Prendergast Lane with St. Celia Avenue
29. Martha Avenue with Hatlen Avenue
30. Martin Avenue with Crestwood Avenue
31. Martin Avenue with Hatlen Avenue
Table 1
EXISTING AND RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL
Existing Intersection Recommended Intersection
Intersection traffic control Traffic Control Traffic Control
All -Way Stop Sign Control 4 4
Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control 35 68
Yield Sign Control 2 0
No Intersection Traffic Control 36 5
Total 77 77
Residential Intersection Traffic 16 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Summary of Recommended Intersection Traffic Control Plan
• Under the recommended intersection plan, 72 of the 77 intersections are to have
two-way/one-way stop sign control or all -way stop sign control. This is a significant
improvement over existing conditions where 38 intersections currently are under yield
sign control or have no intersection traffic control.
• The recommended plan ensures that the local roads generally have less then 1,320 feet of
uninterrupted flow. In most cases, a stop sign is provided at least at every other cross
road along the local roads. This type of intersection traffic control is an excellent
deterrent to neighborhood traffic concerns such as cut -through traffic and speeding along
local roads.
• The intent of collector roads is to distribute the traffic from the zone to the arterial
roadway system and visa versa. As such, collector roads are designed to promote
mobility through a neighborhood via efficient and uninterrupted traffic flow when
possible. However, it should be noted that the collector roads within the zone will not
have free flow through the entire zone. The recommended plan proposes that Meier
Road and Lonnquist Boulevard have all -way stop sign control at two intersections within
the zone and Lincoln Street have all -way stop sign control at one intersection in the zone.
As such, the recommended intersection traffic control plan should ensure a balance
between the mobility that collector roads should provide and providing a deterrent to
neighborhood issues such as cut -through traffic and speeding.
• As indicated, modifications to the existing intersection traffic control are recommended at
38 intersections. However, 33 intersections involve providing stop sign control at
intersections that currently have yield sign control or no intersection traffic control where
motorists currently expect to yield the right-of-way to the cross traffic.
Implementation of Recommended Intersection Traffic Control Plan
The recommended intersection traffic control plan is proposing modification of the existing
intersection traffic control at 38 of the 77 intersections within the zone. As a result, an
implementation plan has been developed to educate and warn the motoring public of the various
changes. The following provides recommendations for implementation of the intersection traffic
control plan.
Residential Intersection Traffic 17 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
1. Phasing/Staging. It is recommended that the entire plan be implemented at the same time
as opposed to staging or phasing in the modifications. Implementing the plan at once
allows the public to become familiar with the changes at once as opposed to subjecting
them to staged or phased process. Furthermore, it is far more practical from a logistical
standpoint (serving public notice, installing warning sign, etc.) to implement the plan at
the same time.
2. Public Notice. To properly educate the public, a comprehensive marketing campaign
should be implemented prior to any modifications. This should include providing public
notice in the local newspaper(s) and the Village web page, mailings to the residences in
the zone and handouts to the parents and students of the schools.
3. Signage and Warning Devices. The following signage and warning devices are
recommended to be installed in the zone to further warn the motoring public of the
various modifications.
• "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs should be located below stop signs at
intersections where (1) all -way stop sign control is recommended to be replaced
with two-way/one-way stop sign control and (2) the intersection traffic control is
recommended to be switched from one road to the other. The additional signage
will alert the motorists that the cross traffic does not have to stop at the particular
intersection as it did prior to the modifications. A total of three intersections will
require this additional signage.
• A flashing warning beacon or warning flags should be located above new stop
signs installations where (1) two-way/one-way stop sign control is recommended
to be replaced with all -way stop sign control and (2) where the intersection traffic
control is recommended to be switched from one road to the other. The additional
warning devices will further alert motorists that they now have to yield the right-
of-way to the cross traffic. Three intersections will require the warning devices.
• No additional signage or warning devices are required at intersections where
(1) yield signs are recommended to be replaced with stop signs and (2) stop signs
are recommended to be installed at locations with no traffic control. Since the
motoring public has always expected to yield the right of way at these locations,
no additional signage or warning devices are required.
Residential Intersection Traffic 18 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
5.
Conclusion
This study summarizes the results and findings of Zone 11 of the Village of Mount Prospect's
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program. Zone 11 consists of the neighborhood
bounded by Central Road and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights border on the north,
Busse Road on the east, Golf Road on the south and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights
border on the west. The objectives of this study were to (1) inventory and examine the existing
operational characteristics of the zone and roadway system, (2) develop the criteria in which to
evaluate the intersection traffic control and (3) examine the existing conditions of each
intersection and the overall zone and recommended the appropriate intersection traffic control.
Based on the results of the study, a recommended intersection traffic control plan was developed
for Zone 11 and is shown in Figure 6. The plan was developed based on the guidelines
established by the Village in its Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program and conformity
with the 2003 MUTCD. The following summarizes the recommended intersection traffic control
plan.
• It is recommended that Lincoln Street, Lonnquist Boulevard, and Meier Road between
Lincoln Street and Golf Road all be classified as collector roads in the zone. All three
roads are currently classified as collector roads by the Village of Mount Prospect.
• The following provides a summary of the recommended intersection traffic control at the
77 intersections within the zone under the jurisdiction of the Village.
➢ Four All -Way Stop Sign Controlled Intersections
➢ Sixty -Eight Two -Way or One -Way Stop Sign Controlled Intersections
➢ Five Intersections with No Intersection Traffic Control
Residential Intersection Traffic 19 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
• Per the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program guidelines, 72 of the
77 intersections are recommended to be controlled by (1) two-way/one-way stop sign
control or (2) all -way stop sign control. This is a significant upgrade from existing
conditions where 38 intersections are under yield sign control or have no intersection
traffic control.
• The plan has been developed to minimize cut -through traffic and speeding on local roads
by having generally less than 1,320 feet of uninterrupted flow. In most cases, a stop sign
is provided at least at every other cross road along the local roads. Furthermore, the plan
strikes a balance between the mobility that collectors roads need to provide and
implementing an appropriate deterrent to cut -through traffic and speeding.
• Of the 77 total intersections, traffic control modifications are recommended at
38 intersections in the zone as outlined below and shown in Figure 7.
- One intersection is recommended to be converted from all -way stop sign control
to two-way/one-way stop sign control.
- One intersection is recommended to be converted from two-way/one-way stop
sign control to all -way stop sign control.
- Two intersections are recommended to change the road which will be under stop
sign control at two-way/one-way stop sign controlled intersections.
- Two intersections are recommended to be converted from one-way/two-way yield
sign control to one-way/two-way stop sign control.
- One intersection is recommended to be converted from one-way stop sign control
to two-way stop sign control.
- Thirty-one intersections with no traffic control are recommended to be converted
to two-way/one-way stop sign control.
Intersection Traffic Control Study - Zone 11 in Mount Prospect February 2008 maw
Residential Intersection Traffic 20 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Appendix
FIG1,3RE
....,A ,I F.Zll I
OC
LEGEND
*-> =STOP
= YIELD
= TP,RFFIC SIGNRL
iE iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill iiiiiiiiiiiii - VILLAGE
U
(D
Q
U
HAVEN ST
JODY CT
U
E--j
°1 CENTRE RD
w
Lu
� z
o~
GRINDLE DR
FRE
U
cf-)
BONITA AVE
VERDE DR
cn
w
Q
HAT LEN AVE
0
0
0
3
w
LINCOLN ST
w
ROBBIE LN Q
z
w
SCOTT TERR
Q
RUSTY RD
z w
MARK TERR J
Q
Q o
o
CD 0
SULLIVAN 00 3 KIM AVE
CT
o ~
w
J
LAWRENCE LN o ESTATES DR
Q
w U
Q �
LLJ_ FOREST VIEW
�
w ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
w
U
PRENDERGAST LN
MARTHA AVE LLj
w Q
z Q w
LLJ
T �! J
LEGEND
w
Q
Q
1
0
0
122831 1 1 1
HM/FN cT
U
(D
� N
U -
N
576
°1 CENTRA L RD
w
w
0 w
z 0 Q
� z
w w
o ~
Q =
GRINDLE DR
91
SCOTT TERR
574
MARK TERR
SULLIVAN
�C T
N
Q
Lf)
z
�J
�
0
0
3
w
U
qq-
Qo
144
VERDE DR
w
Q
333
HATLEN AVE
LINCOLN ST
ROBBIE LN ap Q
C'l z
w
33U 2751<11
RUSTY RO
z w
CD
o
117
� CD CD 3 KIM AVE
w
o
- w
z °C
2 416
o ESTATES OR
Q
U
FOREST VIEWS 116
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
105
MARTHA AVE w
w �
� z
Q w
r_ n
LEGEND
w
Q
Q
1
0
0
°1 CENTRA L RD
16 --op-
00 O
N Ln
�-116
w
Q
Q
z
w
I
w
120� T
U V
(�
U
-om-30
HAVEN ST
40--op-
(-�
JODY CT
IIIIII �
0
muuuuuuuumomuuuuw IIII
-4*-19
LAWRENCE LN
21--Do-
w CD
Q
N Q
- w
w w
U
L_ ^ J w
U
-)I--2 31
PRENDERGAST LN
23
w
T
in w
z �>
� � z
w w
o ~
Q =
GRINDLE DR
J
�K
rO��
I10 �
f10
SCOTT TERR
6�
f34
MARK TERR
6�—imp-
SULLIVAN
�C T
Q
d7
1
z
J
r— 13
VERDE DR
w
Q
�20
HATLEN AVE
0
0
CD
C1� -
w
LINCOLN ST
N 120�
N
cam, 6 _ w
ROBBIE LN - Q
6 W
�47 � 19
RUSTY RD
15 J Lij 12
_ Q
Q o
CD
�10
0-) m 3 KIM AVE
w
�o 7�
w
z °C
J
CDi ESTATES DR
N
°� 33�
Q
FOREST VIEW
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
g�
�10
MARTHA AVE w
w
7 >
� z
Q w
�, — 17 .--j
w
w
w
w
�
Q
>
Q
>
Q
Q
(-n
Q
o
C w
o
w
o
=
w WHITE
OAK ST
U
(D
> Q
Q
U
Q
z
w
w
HAVEN ST
JOOY CT
U
Ul
O
LAWRENCE LN
w
Q
Q
w
U
w
U
cf)
PRENDERGAST LN
w
r� T
GI
w
ROBBIE LN Q
z
w
SCOTT TERR
Q
RUSTY RO
z w
MARK TERR J >
Q
Q o
o
CD 0
SULLIVAN 00 3 KIM AVE
CT
o ~
w
Z U
J
o ESTATES OR
Q
U
FOREST VIEW
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
MARTHA AVE w
>
w
� z
z Q w
W
CD
0
0
°1 CENTRA L RD
U
(D
Q
U
HAVEN ST
JODY CT
U
E-ii
LAWRENCE LN
w �
Q
Q �
w w
U
W
U
PRENDERGAST LN
79
T
Z
SCOTT TERR
N
H
MARK TERR
SULLIVAN
'\CT
z
�t
0
0
0
3
w
U
LINCOLN ST
VERDE DR
w
CD
0
0
-0
U
(-D
Q
U
HAVEN ST
JODY CT
U
E-ii
°1 CENTRA L RD
SCOTT TERR
MARK TERR
SULLIVAN
'\CT
LAWRENCE LN
w 0
Q
Q
W
w w
U :Z:
W
U
PRENDERGAST LN
w
~ zI
T
�t
0
0
0
3
w
U
LINCOLN ST
VERDE DR
ROBBIE LN Q
z
w
Q
RUSTY RO
z w
Q
o 411,
Li
m 3 KIM AVE
W �p
o
W
z �
o ESTATES OR
Q
U
FOREST VIEW
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
MARTHA AVE w
>
w �
> z
Q w
APPENDIX
Audrey Lane with Grindle Drive................................................................................................ A-1
Audrey Lane with Connie Lane.................................................................................................. A-3
AudreyLane with Audrey Court................................................................................................ A-5
Audrey Lane with Bonita Avenue.............................................................................................. A-7
Hatlen Avenue with Grindle Drive............................................................................................. A-9
Hatlen Avenue with Connie Lane.............................................................................................
A-11
Hatlen Avenue with Bonita Avenue.........................................................................................
A-13
Hatlen Avenue with Beverly Lane............................................................................................
A-15
Hatlen Avenue with Crestwood Lane.......................................................................................
A-17
Hatlen Avenue with Michael Street..........................................................................................
A-19
Hatlen Avenue with Hatlen Court .............................................................................................
A-21
Hatlen Avenue (East Leg) with Lincoln Street.........................................................................
A-23
Hatlen Avenue (West Leg) with Lincoln Street.......................................................................
A-25
Hatlen Avenue with Rusty Road...............................................................................................
A-27
Hatlen Avenue with Kim Avenue.............................................................................................
A-29
Hatlen Avenue (West Leg) with Estates Drive.........................................................................
A-31
Hatlen Avenue (East Leg) with Estates Drive..........................................................................
A-33
Hatlen Avenue with Myrtle Avenue.........................................................................................
A-35
Hatlen Avenue with Martha Lane.............................................................................................
A-37
Hatlen Avenue with Martin Avenue.........................................................................................
A-39
Hatlen Avenue with Lonnquist Boulevard...............................................................................
A-41
Douglas Avenue with Lincoln Street........................................................................................ A-43
Douglas Avenue with Haven Street.......................................................................................... A-45
Hickory Avenue with White Oak Street................................................................................... A-47
Hickory Avenue/Helena Avenue with Lincoln Street.............................................................. A-49
Helena Avenue with Haven Street............................................................................................ A-51
Leonard Avenue with White Oak Street................................................................................... A-53
Leonard Avenue with Lincoln Street........................................................................................ A-5 5
Craig Court with Lincoln Street................................................................................................ A-57
Prairie Avenue with White Oak Street...................................................................................... A-59
Prairie Avenue with Lincoln Street........................................................................................... A-61
Residential Intersection Traffic KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Meier Road with Connie Lane..................................................................................................
A-63
Meier Road with White Oak Street...........................................................................................
A-65
Meier Road with Lincoln Street................................................................................................
A-67
Meier Road with Scott Terrace.................................................................................................
A-68
Meier Road with Haven Street..................................................................................................
A-70
Meier Road with Mark Terrace.................................................................................................
A-72
Meier Road with Jody Court.....................................................................................................
A-74
Meier Road with Sullivan Court...............................................................................................
A-76
Meier Road with Lawrence Lane..............................................................................................
A-78
Meier Road with Prendergast Lane...........................................................................................
A-80
Meier Road with Chris Lane.....................................................................................................
A-82
Meier Road with Lonnquist Boulevard.....................................................................................
A-84
Carol Lane with Lincoln Street.................................................................................................
A-85
Carol Lane with Scott Terrace............................................................................................. .....
A-87
Carol Lane with Rusty Road.....................................................................................................
A-89
Carol Lane with Mark Terrace..................................................................................................
A-91
Carol Lane with Estates Drive..................................................................................................
A-93
Deborah Lane with Lincoln Street............................................................................................ A-95
Deborah Lane with Rusty Road................................................................................................ A-97
Deborah Lane with Estates Drive............................................................................................. A-99
Crestwood Avenue with Lincoln Street..................................................................................
A-101
Crestwood Avenue with Robbie Lane....................................................................................
A-103
Crestwood Avenue with Rusty Road ......................................................................................
A-105
Crestwood Avenue with Kim Avenue....................................................................................
A-107
Crestwood Avenue with Estates Drive...................................................................................
A-109
Crestwood Avenue with Myrtle Avenue................................................................................
A-110
Crestwood Avenue with Martha Avenue................................................................................
A-112
Crestwood Avenue with Martin Avenue................................................................................
A-114
Crestwood Avenue with Lonnquist Boulevard .......................................................................
A-116
Verde Drive (West Leg) with Bonita Avenue........................................................................ A-117
Verde Drive with Michael Street............................................................................................ A-119
Verde Drive with Verde Court ................................................................................................ A-121
Verde Drive (East Leg) with Bonita Avenue.......................................................................... A-123
Bonita Avenue with Lincoln Street......................................................................................... A-125
Bonita Avenue with Sivic Court............................................................................................. A-127
Lincoln Street with Crestwood Lane...................................................................................... A-129
Lincoln Street with Beverly Lane........................................................................................... A-131
Residential Intersection Traffic KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
Robbie Lane with Rusty Road................................................................................................ A-13 3
Noah Terrace with Lawrence Lane......................................................................................... A-13 5
Noah Terrace with Prendergast Lane...................................................................................... A-13 7
St. Celia Avenue with Lawrence Lane................................................................................... A-139
St. Celia Avenue with Prendergast Lane................................................................................ A-141
Lois Court with Lawrence Avenue......................................................................................... A-143
Carol Lane with Lonnquist Boulevard.................................................................................... A-145
Deborah Lane with Lonnquist Boulevard............................................................................... A-147
Kennicott Place with Lonnquist Boulevard............................................................................ A-149
Residential Intersection Traffic KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
AUDREY LANE WITH GRINDLE DRIVE
Table I
EXISTING INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS
Intersection Characteristics North -South Road East-West Road
Roadway Names
a...................................................................................................................................
Existing Intersection Traffic Control
a...................................................................................................................................
Classification of Road
a...................................................................................................................................
Traffic/Pedestrian Volume
a...................................................................................................................................
• Daily Traffic Volume
a...................................................................................................................................
• Peak Hour Traffic Volume
a...................................................................................................................................
• Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume
a...................................................................................................................................
Number of Accidents Per Year
a...................................................................................................................................
Audrey Lane Grindle Drive
.......................................................................................................................................................................
None None
......................................................................:..................................................................................................
Local Local
..........................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................®................................................................................................
887
........................................................................................................................................................
n.a
45
........................................................................................................................................................
n.a
n.a.
.......................................................:..................................................................................................
n.a.
• October 2004 to September 2005 1 0
a.....................................................................................................................................:....................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2005 to September 2006 0
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2006 to September 2007 0
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Land Uses Surrounding Intersection Residential
Table 2
ALL -WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
All -Way Stop Sign Criteria
Meets minimum traffic and pedestrian volume No
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Meets minimum number of intersection accidents No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to control left turn conflicts No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts = No
a.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required due to poor intersection sight distance No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to improve traffic operational characteristics of intersections.
with collectors of similar design and operating characteristics No
Meets All -Way Stop Sign Criteria No
Residential Intersection Traffic A-1 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
AUDREY LANE WITH GRINDLE DRIVE
Table 3
TWO-WAY/ONE-WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
ROAD TO BE CONTROLLED: Grindle Drive
Do the intersecting roads have approximately the same volume of traffic?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If YES, why was the road selected?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• Stopping the road that conflicts the most with pedestrians.
• Stopping the road that has obscured views that already require the driver to
Use lower operating speeds.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• Stopping the road with the best sight distance to conflicting traffic.
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
If NO, was the lower volume road selected for stop sign control?
If NO, why was the higher volume road selected for stop sign control?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• To deter cut through traffic within the zone.
• To minimize sight distance issues.
NO
YES
Residential Intersection Traffic A-2 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
AUDREY LANE WITH CONNIE LANE
Table 1
EXISTING INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS
Intersection Characteristics North -South Road East-West Road
Roadway Names Audrey Lane Connie Lane
Existing Intersection Traffic Control None Stop (Westbound only)
Classification of Road
Traffic/Pedestrian Volume
....................................................................................................................................
• Daily Traffic Volume
....................................................................................................................................
• Peak Hour Traffic Volume
....................................................................................................................................
• Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume
....................................................................................................................................
Number of Accidents Per Year
....................................................................................................................................
• October 2004 to September 2005
....................................................................................................................................
• October 2005 to September 2006
....................................................................................................................................
• October 2006 to September 2007
....................................................................................................................................
Land Uses Surrounding Intersection
Local
Local
........................................................................................
132
........................................................................................
13
........................................................................................
n.a.
........................................................................................
0
.................................................................................................................................................................. .
0
.................................................................................................................................................................. .
0
.................................................................................................................................................................. .
Residential
Table 2
ALL -WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
All -Way Stop Sign Criteria
Meets minimum traffic and pedestrian volume No
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..............................................................................
Meets minimum number of intersection accidents No
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to control left turn conflicts
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .
Required to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
Required due to poor intersection sight distance
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .
Required to improve traffic operational characteristics of intersections
with collectors of similar design and operating characteristics
No
..............................................................................
No
..............................................................................
No
No
Meets All -Way Stop Sign Criteria No
Residential Intersection Traffic A-3 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
AUDREY LANE WITH CONNIE LANE
Table 3
TWO-WAY/ONE-WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
ROAD TO BE CONTROLLED: Connie Lane
Do the intersecting roads have approximately the same volume of traffic?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If YES, why was the road selected?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• Stopping the road that conflicts the most with pedestrians.
• Stopping the road that has obscured views that already require the driver to
Use lower operating speeds.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• Stopping the road with the best sight distance to conflicting traffic.
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
If NO, was the lower volume road selected for stop sign control?
If NO, why was the higher volume road selected for stop sign control?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• To deter cut through traffic within the zone.
• To minimize sight distance issues.
NO
YES
Residential Intersection Traffic A-4 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
HATLEN AVENUE WITH GRINDLE DRIVE
Table 1
EXISTING INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS
Intersection Characteristics
North -South Road
East-West Road
Roadway Names
a............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................®®.....................................................®®.................................
Hatlen Avenue
Grindle Drive
Existing Intersection Traffic Control
a.....................................................................................................................................o...............................................................................................
None
................................................................................................
None
Classification of Road
a.....................................................................................................................................:.................................................................................................................................................................................................
Local
Local
Traffic/Pedestrian Volume
a.....................................................................................................................................o................................................................................................;.................................................................................................
• Daily Traffic Volume
600
n.a.
a.....................................................................................................................................:...............................................................................................
• Peak Hour Traffic Volume
................................................................................................
46
n.a
a.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume
n.a.
n.a.
Number of Accidents Per Year
a.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2004 to September 2005 0
a.....................................................................................................................................:....................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2005 to September 2006 0
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2006 to September 2007 1 0
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Land Uses Surrounding Intersection Residential
Table 2
ALL -WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
All -Way Stop Sign Criteria
Meets minimum traffic and pedestrian volume No
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Meets minimum number of intersection accidents No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to control left turn conflicts No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts = No
a.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required due to poor intersection sight distance No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to improve traffic operational characteristics of intersections
with collectors of similar design and operating characteristics No
Meets All -Way Stop Sign Criteria No
Residential Intersection Traffic A-9 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
HATLEN AVENUE WITH GRINDLE DRIVE
Table 3
TWO-WAY/ONE-WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
ROAD TO BE CONTROLLED: Grindle Drive
Do the intersecting roads have approximately the same volume of traffic?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If YES, why was the road selected?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• Stopping the road that conflicts the most with pedestrians.
• Stopping the road that has obscured views that already require the driver to
Use lower operating speeds.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• Stopping the road with the best sight distance to conflicting traffic.
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
If NO, was the lower volume road selected for stop sign control?
If NO, why was the higher volume road selected for stop sign control?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• To deter cut through traffic within the zone.
• To minimize sight distance issues.
NO
YES
Residential Intersection Traffic A-10 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
HATLEN AVENUE WITH CONNIE LANE
Table 1
EXISTING INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS
Intersection Characteristics
North -South Road
East-West Road
Roadway Names
a.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hatlen Avenue
®................................................................................................
Connie Lane
Existing Intersection Traffic Control
a.....................................................................................................................................o...............................................................................................
None
................................................................................................
None
Classification of Road
a.....................................................................................................................................:.................................................................................................................................................................................................
Local
Local
Traffic/Pedestrian Volume
a.....................................................................................................................................o................................................................................................;.................................................................................................
• Daily Traffic Volume
600
132
a.....................................................................................................................................:...............................................................................................
• Peak Hour Traffic Volume
................................................................................................
46
11
a.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume
n. a.
n. a.
Number of Accidents Per Year
a.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2004 to September 2005 1
a.....................................................................................................................................:....................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2005 to September 2006 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• October 2006 to September 2007 1 0
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Land Uses Surrounding Intersection Residential
Table 2
ALL -WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
All -Way Stop Sign Criteria
Meets minimum traffic and pedestrian volume No
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Meets minimum number of intersection accidents No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to control left turn conflicts No
a............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................®.............................................................................
Required to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts = No
a.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required due to poor intersection sight distance No
a..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Required to improve traffic operational characteristics of intersections
with collectors of similar design and operating characteristics No
Meets All -Way Stop Sign Criteria No
Residential Intersection Traffic A-11 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
HATLEN AVENUE WITH CONNIE LANE
Table 3
TWO-WAY/ONE-WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL EVALUATION
ROAD TO BE CONTROLLED: Connie Lane
Do the intersecting roads have approximately the same volume of traffic?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If YES, why was the road selected?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• Stopping the road that conflicts the most with pedestrians.
• Stopping the road that has obscured views that already require the driver to
Use lower operating speeds.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• Stopping the road with the best sight distance to conflicting traffic.
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
If NO, was the lower volume road selected for stop sign control?
If NO, why was the higher volume road selected for stop sign control?
• Stopping the road with the lower functional classification.
• Stopping the road that ends at the intersection (T intersections only).
• To minimize modifications to the traffic control in the zone.
• Stopping the road with the longest distance of uninterrupted flow.
• To deter cut through traffic within the zone.
• To minimize sight distance issues.
NO
YES
Residential Intersection Traffic A-12 KLOA, Inc.
Control Program - Zone 11 February 2008
First Post Study
Residential Speed Limit Study and
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study
Zone 11
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect
By Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc.
First Post Study
Residential Speed Limit Study and
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study
Zone 11
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect
By Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc.
Rosemont, Illinois
February 2009
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables, ii
1.
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
2.
UPDATED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS............................................................................................3
SpeedLimit Modifications.......................................................................................................3
Intersection Traffic Control Modifications...............................................................................4
Functional Classification of the Roadway System...................................................................5
Traffic Volumes and Speed Data..............................................................................................5
IntersectionAccident Data.......................................................................................................5
PedestrianVolume....................................................................................................................6
3.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION..............................................................................8
DailyTraffic Volumes..............................................................................................................9
AverageSpeeds......................................................................................................................12
AccidentData.........................................................................................................................13
PedestrianVolume..................................................................................................................14
4.
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................18
First Post Study 1 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
List of Figures and Tables
Tables in Report
1. Zone 11 - Comparison of Previous and Current Posted Speed Limits ................................... 4
2. Zone 11 - Comparison of Previous and Current Intersection Traffic Control ........................ 4
3. Zone 11 - Summary of Accident Data.................................................................................... 6
4. Zone 11 - Total Pedestrian Volume Per Intersection.............................................................. 7
5. Locations that Experienced an Increase in Daily Traffic Volumes.......................................11
6. Locations that had an Average Speed of 30 mph or Greater or Experienced a Five mph
or Greater Increase in Average Speed...................................................................................13
7. Location of Accidents in Zone 11 July 2008 through December 2008..............................14
Figures
All figures are located in the Appendix.
1. Location of Zone 11..........................................................................................................19
2. Current Posted Speed Limits.............................................................................................20
3. Current Intersection Traffic Control.................................................................................21
4. Previous and Current Intersection Traffic Control...........................................................22
5. Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes.............................................................................23
6. Comparison of Average Speeds........................................................................................24
7. Recommended Locations to be Reexamined....................................................................25
First Post study 11 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
1.
Introduction
The Village of Mount Prospect has embarked on a Village -wide study of the traffic operations
within its residential neighborhoods. In order to accomplish this task, the Village has initiated
two traffic programs which are intent on providing a higher level of standardization, increase
driver expectation and enhance safety as it pertains to traffic regulations. The two programs and
the objective of each are as follows:
• The Residential Speed Limit Program whose objective is to evaluate and determine the
appropriate speed limit for each of the residential roads under the Village's jurisdiction.
• The Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program whose objective is to review,
evaluate and determine the appropriate traffic control signage at all of the intersections
under the Village's jurisdiction.
Each road and/or intersection will be studied based on accepted engineering practices,
conformity with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Policy on Establishing and
Posting Speed Limits, the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the
criteria established by the Village in its Residential Speed Limit Program and Residential
Intersection Traffic Control Program.
Due to the size of the Village and complexity of the programs, the Village has been divided into
eighteen different zones. To date, studies have been completed for fourteen zones with the
Village staff performing the Residential Speed Limit Studies and Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara,
Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) performing the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Studies.
First Post Study 1 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
As part of the two programs, the Village is requesting that two to three post (follow-up) studies
be performed for each zone. The intent of the post studies is to (1) review the zone's speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications, (2) evaluate how the roadway system is operating
since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications and
(3) determine whether any locations need further examination (first post study) or any
adjustments are required to the speed limits and/or intersection traffic control (second/third post
study). Per the Village's direction, the first post studies will examine the entire zones while the
second/third post studies will examine only those portions of each zone that are determined to
require additional review and evaluation.
This study summarizes the results and findings of the First Post Study for Zone 11. Figure 1
illustrates Zone 11 which is bounded by Central Road and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights
border on the north, Busse Road on the east, Golf Road on the south and the Mount
Prospect/Arlington Heights border on the west. (All of the figures for this study are provided at
the end of the report.) Both the Residential Speed Limit Study, conducted by the Village, and the
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, conducted by KLOA, Inc., were completed in
February 2008 with the speed limit and intersection traffic control modifications implemented in
June 2008.
First Post Study 2 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
2.
Updated Traffic Conditions
The transportation conditions in the zone were thoroughly inventoried to obtain a database of the
existing physical and operating characteristics of the roadway system and are documented in the
original studies. In order to update the database of existing conditions since the implementation
of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications, KLOA, Inc. and the Village of
Mount Prospect conducted follow-up field surveys, traffic/pedestrian counts and speed surveys
and collected transportation related information. The following outlines the modifications that
have been implemented within the zone and the additional data that was collected.
Speed Limit Modifications
Zone 11 has a total of 12 miles of roads that are under the Village's jurisdiction. Figure 2
illustrates the posted speed limit per road that was recommended as part of the Residential Speed
Limit Study and has since been implemented. A comparison of the previous and current speed
limits per mile of roadway is shown in Table 1. The entire zone has a speed limit of 25 mph with
20 mph School Zone posted speed limits provided on Lonnquist Boulevard, Estates Drive,
and Deborah Lane within the vicinity of the two schools.
First Post Study 3 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Table 1
ZONE 11 - COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS AND CURRENT POSTED SPEED LIMITS
Previous Speed Limits Current Speed Limits
Road Miles Percentage Road Miles Percentage
20 mph 2.8 23 % 0 0%
25 mph 2.6 22% 12.0 100%
30 mph 6.6 55% 0 0%
Intersection Traffic Control Modifications
Zone 11 has a total of 77 intersections that are under the Village's jurisdiction. Figure 3
illustrates the intersection traffic control that has been implemented based on the
recommendations of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study. It should be noted that
the original study recommended two-way stop sign control at the Bonita Avenue/Hatlen Avenue
intersection. However, the Village Board decided to maintain the all -way stop sign control at
this intersection. A comparison of the previous and current intersection traffic control is
illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 4 summarizes the intersection traffic control modifications that
occurred within the zone. Currently, two-way/one-way stop sign control or all -way stop sign
control is provided at 72 of the 77 intersections within the zone.
Table 2
ZONE 11 - COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS AND CURRENT
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL
Previous Intersection Current Intersection
Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Control Traffic Control
All -Way Stop Sign Control 4 5
Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control 35 67
Yield Sign Control 2 0
No Intersection Traffic Control 36 5
Total 77 77
First Post Study 4 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Functional Classification of the Roadway System
All of the zone's roadways are classified as either collector roads and/or local roads. Per the
recommendation of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, the Village currently
classifies the following roadways within the zone as collector roads.
• Lincoln Street
• Lonnquist Boulevard
• Meier Road between Golf Road and Lincoln Street
All of the other zone's roadways are classified as local roads. It should be noted that, prior to the
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, the Village of Mount Prospect classified Lincoln
Street, Lonnquist Boulevard, and the entire length of Meier Road as collector roads.
Traffic Volumes and Speed Data
KLOA, Inc. and the Village of Mount Prospect conducted traffic counts and speed surveys at a
number of locations within the zone. All of the traffic counts/speed surveys were conducted for
a minimum of two days and were broken down by direction and by hour. The following outlines
the number and date of the counts/surveys conducted for each of the studies.
• As part of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, KLOA, Inc. conducted
counts/surveys at 39 locations within the zone and obtained previous counts/surveys
conducted by the Village of Mount Prospect at nine additional locations within the zone.
The KLOA, Inc. traffic counts/surveys were conducted in October 2007.
• As part of the First Post Study, KLOA, Inc. conducted updated counts/surveys in
October 2008 at 48 locations within the zone.
Figure 5 provides a comparison of the daily traffic volumes and Figure 6 provides a comparison
of the average speeds within the zone prior to and after the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications.
Intersection Accident Data
KLOA, Inc. obtained accident data from the Village of Mount Prospect for the zone's roadways
and intersections as part of the original and post studies. The accident data for the Residential
Intersection Traffic Control Study was obtained for a three year period from the beginning of
October 2004 through the end of September 2007, while the accident data for the First Post
Study was obtained for a six month period from July 2008 through December 2008. Table 3
provides a summary of the accident data.
First Post study 5 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Table 3
ZONE 11 - SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT DATA
Time Period Accidents Accidents Per Month
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study
October 2004 through September 2005 4 0.333
October 2005 through September 2006 2 0.167
October 2006 through September 2007 4 0.333
Average Accidents Per Year 3.333 0.278
First Post Study
July 2008 through December 2008 1 0.167
Refer to Table 7 for the location of accidents that have occurred since the implementation of the speed limit and
traffic control modifications.
Pedestrian Volume
Pedestrian traffic counts were conducted at five intersections within zone as part of the various
studies. The counts were conducted for two hours during the morning peak period and two hours
during the evening peak period in October 2007 (Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study),
and October 2008 (First Post Study). Table 4 summarizes the results of the pedestrian counts.
First Post Study 6 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Table 4
ZONE 11 - TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUME PER INTERSECTION
Intersection
October 2007
October 2008
Estates Drive with Deborah Lane
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
29
10
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
60
72
Estates Drive with Carol Lane
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
8
3
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
12
15
Estates Drive with Crestwood Avenue
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
15
21
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
41
65
Lonnquist Boulevard with Meier Road
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
19
24
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
23
28
Lonnquist Boulevard with Crestwood Avenue
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
16
17
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
15
21
First Post Study 7 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
3.
Evaluation and Recommendation
The intent of the post studies is to (1) review the zone's speed limit/intersection traffic control
modifications, (2) evaluate how the roadway system is operating since the implementation of the
speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications and (3) determine whether any locations
need further examination (first post study) or any adjustments are required to the speed limits
and/or intersection traffic control (second/third post study). This was accomplished by
reviewing and analyzing the following pre and post operating characteristics within the zone.
• Daily Traffic Volumes
• Average Speeds
• Accident Data
• Pedestrian Volumes
These four operating characteristics were chosen as they provide the most relevant insight to the
primary traffic concerns within any neighborhood: vehicular volume, vehicular speed and
overall vehicular and pedestrian safety. The following provides a detailed evaluation of the four
operating characteristics, recommends the locations for further examination and determines if
any adjustments are required to the speed limits and/or intersection traffic control.
First Post Study 8 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Daily Traffic Volumes
Background
First, traffic volumes fluctuate on a daily basis and, as such, any increase or decrease in traffic is
not necessarily attributed to the speed limit and intersection traffic control modifications. Traffic
volumes typically vary by season or month of the year, day of the week and time of the day
particularly if the zone contains land uses other than residential, including commercial
developments, schools, religious facilities, etc. A ten to fifteen percent variation in traffic
volumes is typical in suburban areas.
Second, properly designed residential intersection traffic control plans complement and further
define the hierarchy or functional classification of the roadway system. Collector roads and local
roads are the two types of roadways typically found in the zones. The function of collector roads
are to connect traffic between the local and arterial roads as well as providing access to abutting
land uses. The function of local roads are to provide access between collector/arterial roads and
abutting land uses. Consequently, collector roads should carry a higher volume of traffic than
local roads as they provide the mobility through the zones. One of the primary purposes of the
residential intersection traffic control plan is to more appropriately distribute the traffic along the
roadway system. Therefore, the following traffic flow changes (redistributions) are expected
within the zones as a result of the intersection traffic control modifications.
• The count locations that experience an increase in traffic are expected to primarily occur
along the collector roads whereas the count locations that experience a decrease in traffic
are primarily expected to occur along the local roads.
• The highest percent increase in traffic is primarily expected to occur along the collector
roads as opposed to the local roads.
• Collector roads may experience increases in traffic exceeding the ten to fifteen percent
variation in traffic volumes that is typical in suburban areas.
Criteria for Further Examination
Village staff and KLOA, Inc. have concurred that any location that experienced an increase in
traffic of ten percent or more will be reexamined as part of the second post study.
The ten percent increase was selected as it represents the lower threshold of the ten to fifteen
percent variation in traffic volumes that is typical in suburban areas. However, as discussed
above, the increase in traffic is expected to vary depending on the time of the year and the
roadway classification. As such, the ten percent threshold is only to be used to determine the
locations for further examination and is not to be interpreted as the threshold that signifies an
issue or concern. Each location will be evaluated based on its physical and operating
characteristics as well as how it is operating both individually and within the entire roadway
system.
First Post Study 9 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Evaluation
Figure 5 provides a comparison of the zone's daily traffic volumes prior to and after the
implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications. Of the 48 total
locations, the daily traffic volumes decreased at 31 locations and only increased at seventeen
locations. The traffic volumes decreased at 65 percent of the count locations. As such, the
comparison of the daily traffic volumes indicates that the traffic volumes within the zone as a
whole have remained stable, if not decreased, since the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications.
Table 5 provides a comparison of the daily traffic volumes and the percent increase at the
seventeen locations that experienced an increase in traffic. A closer examination of Table 5
reveals the following.
• Of the seventeen locations that experienced an increase in traffic, only four locations had
an increase of ten percent or more. Therefore, the increase in traffic at the various
locations were generally within the ten to fifteen percent variation in traffic volumes that
is typical in suburban areas.
• Of the four locations that had an increase of ten percent or more, all four occurred on
local roads. However, it should be noted that these locations carry a limited volume of
daily traffic (between 90 and 196 vehicles a day). As such, the daily increase in traffic on
these roads is limited (between 13 and 38 vehicles a day). Assuming that the majority of
the traffic traverses the road within an 18-hour period, this averages to an increase of
approximately one to two vehicles an hour per location.
In conclusion, the evaluation of the traffic counts indicates that (1) the traffic volumes within the
zone as a whole have remained stable, if not decreased, and (2) any increase in traffic was
generally within the expected daily variation. At this time, the results of the updated traffic
counts do not justify any adjustments to the zone's speed limits and/or intersection traffic
control. Nevertheless, based on the criteria discussed above, the four locations shown in Table 5
with an increase in traffic of ten percent or greater will be reexamined as part of the second post
study.
First Post Study 10 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Table 5
LOCATIONS THAT EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Location
Roadway
Classification
Daily Traffic Volumes
October 2007 October 2008
Percent
Increase
Lincoln between Hatlen and Crestwood
Collector
21213
21217
0.18%
Meier between Lincoln and Scott
Collector
2,112
21152
1.89%
Hatlen between Central and Grindle
Local
600
609
1.50%
Prairie between White Oak and Lincoln
Local
93
101
8.60%
Hickory between White Oak and Lincoln
Local
129
131
1.55%
Audrey between Connie and Bonita
Local
175
195
11.42%
Connie between Hatlen and Audrey
Local
132
170
28.79%
Scott between Meier and Carol
Local
91
99
8.79%
Mark between Meier and Carol
Local
574
628
9.41 %
Carol between Mark and Estates
Local
542
567
4.61 %
Estates between Deborah and Crestwood
Local
492
531
7.93%
Crestwood between Martin and Lonnquist
Local
615
627
1.95%
Rusty between Robbie and Crestwood
Local
275
290
5.45%
Estates between Crestwood and Hatlen
Local
416
432
3.85%
Myrtle between Crestwood and Hatlen
Local
116
123
6.03%
Robbie between Crestwood and Rusty
Local
77
90
16.88%
Deborah between Rusty and Estates
Local
175
196
12.00%
First Post Study 11 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Average Speeds
Background
While travel speeds are more consistent than traffic volumes, they will vary by season or month
of the year, day of the week and time of the day. As such, any increase or decrease in travel
speeds is not necessarily attributed to the speed limit and intersection traffic control
modifications. The main factors affecting travel speeds are the roadway's physical and operating
characteristics, including width of road, number of travel lanes, hills, curves, roadway surface
and length of free flow conditions. Many of these attributes are fixed within the zone's
infrastructure and are generally difficult and/or costly to change/modify. Furthermore, the courts
typically will not uphold a speeding ticket unless it is in excess of ten mph above the posted
speed limit. Therefore, travel speeds within five mph of the posted speed limit are generally
considered acceptable within the industry and with most communities.
Criteria for Further Examination
Village staff and KLOA, Inc. have concurred that any location that has an observed average
speed of 30 mph or greater and/or experienced a five mph increase in its average speed will be
reexamined as part of the second post study. The 30 mph observed average speed was selected
as it represents a five mph increase over the 25 mph posted speed limit within the zone.
Furthermore, a five mph increase in average speed is the range that is generally acceptable.
However, as discussed above, the average travel speeds are expected to vary depending on the
time of the year and the roadway design. As such, the observed average speed of 30 mph or
greater and/or a five mph increase in the average speed criteria is only to be used to determine
the locations for further examination and is not to be interpreted as the threshold that signifies
an issue or concern. Each location will be evaluated based on its physical and operating
characteristics as well as how it is operating both individually and within the entire roadway
system.
Evaluation
Figure 6 provides a comparison of the average speeds within the zone prior to and after the
implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications. Of the 48 locations,
only five locations had an observed average speed of either 30 mph or greater (three locations)
or experienced a five mph or greater increase in its average speed (two locations). Table 6 shows
the five locations that meets the criteria for further examination. In general, the average speeds
observed in the zone were 26 mph or less and that the change in the observed average speeds was
three mph or less. Lastly, many locations either (1) had an observed average speed of less than
25 mph and/or (2) experienced a decrease in the observed average speed.
First Post Study 12 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Table 6
LOCATIONS THAT HAD AN AVERAGE SPEED OF 30 MPH OR GREATER
OR EXPERIENCED A FIVE MPH OR GREATER INCREASE IN AVERAGE SPEED
Average Speed (mph) Increase in
Average
Location Direction October 2007 October 2008 Speed (mph)
Lincoln between Crestwood and Hatlen
Eastbound
33
31
-2
Lincoln between Hickory and Leonard
Eastbound
30
30
0
Lincoln between Hickory and Leonard
Westbound
31
30
-1
Meier between Lincoln and White Oak
Southbound
28
30
+2
Leonard between Lincoln and White Oak
Southbound
18
23
5
Martin between Crestwood and Hatlen
Eastbound
18
23
5
In conclusion, the results of the speed surveys indicate that the average speeds within the zone
have generally remained constant and are within the acceptable range. At this time, the results of
the updated speed surveys do not justify any adjustments to the zone's speed limits or
intersection traffic control. Nevertheless, based on the criteria established above, the five
locations shown in Table 6 will be reexamined as part of the second post study.
Accident Data
In the six month period since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control
modifications, the zone experienced a total of one accident. Table 7 summarizes the locations of
the accident. It should be noted that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
defines a crash problem as follows when warranting an all -way stop sign control at an
intersection.
A crash problem, as identified by five or more reported crashes in a 12-month
period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation.
As such, one accident at an intersection or one total accident within a zone is very low and does
not signify a problem. Furthermore, Table 3 shows that the average number of accidents on a
per month basis has decreased within the zone during the six months since the implementation of
the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications.
First Post Study 13 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Table 7
LOCATION OF ACCIDENTS IN ZONE 11
JULY 2008 THROUGH DECEMBER 2008
Intersection Number of Accidents
Meier Road and Connie Lane
In conclusion, the zone as a whole and each of the intersections had a very low incident of
accidents since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications.
As such, the evaluation of the accident data indicates that the speed limit and intersection traffic
control modifications are promoting the efficient and orderly flow of traffic within the zone and,
at this time, does not justify any adjustments to the zone's speed limits or intersection traffic
control. Nevertheless, the accident data for the entire zone will be reexamined as part of the
second post study.
Pedestrian Volume
A comparison of the counts show that the volume of pedestrian activity at several of the
intersections have experienced some fluctuation in pedestrian activity. However, these
intersections are generally near the schools and/or park in the zone. Further, the traffic control at
these intersections have remained the same or have been improved as part of the program.
Therefore, the fluctuation in pedestrian activity is mostly likely due to the activity at the schools
or the park or possibly weather related as opposed to the speed limit and intersection traffic
control modifications. At this time, the results of the updated pedestrian counts do not justify
any adjustments to the zone's speed limits and/or intersection traffic control. Nevertheless, the
pedestrian activity at all five intersections will be reexamined as part of the second post study.
First Post Study 14 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
4.
Conclusion
This study summarizes the results and findings of the First Post Study for Zone 11. The intent of
the post studies is to (1) review the zone's speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications,
(2) evaluate how the roadway system is operating since the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications and (3) determine whether any locations need
further examination (first post study) or any adjustments are required to the speed limits and/or
intersection traffic control (second/third post study). Zone 11 consists of the neighborhood
bounded by Central Road and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights border on the north,
Busse Road on the east, Golf Road on the south, and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights
border on the west.
The results and findings of the First Post Study indicate that the operating characteristics within
the zone have generally improved since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic
control modifications. While some roadways have experienced a slight increase in traffic and/or
observed average speed, the number of locations has been very limited and generally within the
expected daily variations and/or acceptable ranges. Furthermore, the positive impacts (reduced
number of accidents and traffic volumes and average speeds generally within acceptable ranges)
on the operation of the zone's roadway system far out weigh the limited number of locations that
experienced a slight increase in traffic or average speed. As summarized below, the speed limit
and intersection control traffic modifications are promoting a more efficient and orderly flow of
traffic within the zone.
• Daily Traffic Volumes. The daily traffic volumes decreased at 31 locations and only
increased at seventeen locations since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection
traffic control modifications. Furthermore, only four locations had an increase of ten
percent or more. Therefore, the evaluation of the traffic counts indicates that
(1) the traffic volumes within the zone as a whole have remained stable, if not decreased,
and (2) any increase in traffic was generally within the expected daily variation.
First Post Study 15 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
• Average Travel Speeds. Only five locations had an observed average speed of 30 mph or
greater (three locations) and/or experienced a five mph increase in its average speed
(two locations) or greater since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic
control modifications. In general, the average speeds observed in the zone were 26 mph
or less and the change in the observed average speeds was three mph or less.
Therefore, the average speeds within the zone have generally remained constant and are
within the acceptable range.
• Accident Data. In the six month period since the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications, the zone experienced one accident which
indicates that the zone as a whole and each of the intersections had a very low incident of
accidents. Furthermore, the average number of accidents on a per -month basis has
decreased within the zone during the six months. Therefore, the accident data indicates
that the speed limit and intersection traffic control modifications are promoting the
efficient and orderly flow of traffic within zone.
• Pedestrian Volume. The pedestrian activity at several intersections have experienced
some fluctuation in pedestrian activity since the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications. However, the fluctuation in pedestrian
activity is most likely due to the activity at the schools or the park or possibly weather
related as opposed to the speed limit and traffic control modifications.
At this time, the findings of the First Post Study do not justify any adjustments to the speed limit
or intersection traffic control. However, based on the established criteria, it is recommended that
the following locations, as illustrated in Figure 7, be reexamined as part of the second post study
to take place in the Spring of 2009.
Daily Traffic Counts and Speed Surveys
1. Audrey Lane between Connie Lane and Bonita Avenue
2. Connie Lane between Haden Avenue and Audrey Lane
3. Lincoln Street between Crestwood Avenue and Haden Avenue
4. Lincoln Street between Hickory Avenue and Leonard Avenue
5. Meier Road between Lincoln Street and White Oak Street
6. Leonard Avenue between Lincoln Street and White Oak Street
7. Martin Avenue between Crestwood Avenue and Haden Avenue
8. Deborah Lane between Rusty Road and Estates Drive
9. Robbie Lane between Rusty Road and Crestwood Avenue
10. Audrey Lane between Central Road and Grindle Drive
11. Haden Avenue between Central Road and Grindle Drive
12. Crestwood Avenue between Lincoln Street and Robbie Lane
13. Meier Road between Lonnquist Boulevard and Chris Lane
14. Crestwood Avenue between Lonnquist Boulevard and Martin Avenue
First Post Study 16 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 February 2009
Pedestrian Traffic Counts
All five intersections
Accident Data
All 77 intersections Within the zone
First Post Study - Zone 11 - Mount Prospect - REPORT - February 2009 maw
First Post study
Zone 11
17
KLOA, Inc.
February 2009
Appendix
FIG1,3RE
....,A ,I F.Zll I
OC
. . .........II
Viflage., of Mount Prospect
Reflid c n, lial Speed LJ m it P rogra m
I , I RECOMMENDATION MAP
mir= Moulm'smasim
iT
N�
W
f
M NO 4"PIR if MAMMA 'RMW/ W, W Pl 91 IN or)NW 91 IN "I
INN"
oil
al Ij PCW ITA XV
Po
001
........ . . .....
VERDE (A wwilorrayi
0M, *1'flrrul
al.
f
o10 oe
Yid
O l'
IN LI P0
T
16-
Z,
rE, U4 silusamm"Wid
oil on
MAW MR,
WIN P5 MIMPTIMAMMIR
j< I'm GTI
AV 11
rkXtrN)kM1:T
A
"T
Lwwwg maivol'sona, LA" fox U4 nlo=uucr 'I owod ATe�`,r, JX% V
Iwo iddiiiiliaahl
hilil"i
ti
WI R
Wf,�,
V
IMMM, �Wgwgli�pp,
LN inswulaconow
r�.-q(A �T I P4
LLM
tN
W
■
1j
CL
It-
G 171
- END
10 raph
20 ailpt."I
20 rriph School Zone,;
25 mph
30 mph I p er V711(xje, -Code)
ajow, 30 rn p h pc,�,f r III j'7 o, j s. Ja w)
II' 4'4111Ww1w 3,55 M IIh,
40mpfi,
xww 45,mph
W
CD
0
0
°1 CENTRA L RD
U
(D
Q
U
HAVEN ST
JODY CT
U
E-ii
LAWRENCE LN
w �
Q
Q �
w w
U
W
U
PRENDERGAST LN
79
T
Z
SCOTT TERR
N
H
MARK TERR
SULLIVAN
'\CT
z
�t
0
0
0
3
w
U
LINCOLN ST
VERDE DR
w
CD
0
0
-0
U
(-D
Q
U
HAVEN ST
JODY CT
U
E-ii
°1 CENTRA L RD
SCOTT TERR
MARK TERR
SULLIVAN
'\CT
LAWRENCE LN
w 0
Q
Q
W
w w
U :Z:
W
U
PRENDERGAST LN
w
~ zI
T
�t
0
0
0
3
w
U
LINCOLN ST
VERDE DR
ROBBIE LN Q
z
w
Q
RUSTY RO
z w
Q
o 411,
Li
m 3 KIM AVE
W �p
o
W
z �
o ESTATES OR
Q
U
FOREST VIEW
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
MARTHA AVE w
>
w �
> z
Q w
LEGEND
w
Q
Q
1
0
0
°1 CENTRAL RD
(275)
0 �
(\J N � 0
- (T)
m co
122831 1 1 1
(2130)
U
(D
� N
N
576
HAVEN ST
(504)
( JODY CT
U
0
384
LAWRENCE LN
wc337)
Q�
0
O NQ� Ir
J w
w� w
w
U
384
PRENDERGAST LN
(339)
w
N 0 w
zN O>
Jap �Q
w w
o ~
Q =
GRINDLE DR
�O
(2197)
N
C\'U-01 91
SCOTT TERR
(99)
574
MARK TERR
(628)
SULLIVAN
�C T
N
Q
Ln
z
�J
0
o�
0
3L
w
U
144
� VERDE DR
L3O)
J
W
Q
S
333
HATLEN AVE
LINCOLN ST
(2217)
Q9 0
ryl-)
77 (V w
ROBBIE LN ap Q
(90) C,\' W
336 275
RUSTY RD
(330) J >(290)
CD
o
117
inCD m Q9 3 KIM AVE
CD (102)
I� o
2
Ln 416
o ESTATES OR
(432) �S
N
FOREST VIEW116
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
(123)
105
MARTHA AVE w
w (84)
� z
Q w
r_ n.--j
LEGEND
w
Q
Q
1
O
C.
N N
26 25 20 22 18 19 21 20 28
(26) (25) (19) (17) (23) (22) (19) (20) (30
^
rn
Mo
.-%
00
M M
..00 U
28
Q
(27)
U
U-) 00
N N
N6\/P7NI QT
w
Q
?2 15 18
21) (16)'(15)
w
U
CV
CV N
PRENDERGAST LN
°1 CENTRA L RD
0
w
w
w
z �
w 26 27 W
CD(27) (27
GRINDLE DR
I�
.� rn
VERDE DR
c rn
J
w
Q
Q N c�
V
u
HATLEN AVE
o 19
L
N N
cllQN (20)
°° (22)
m
, N
LINCOLN ST
m 00
M --
CV N
M M
27
22
23
rn
(23
�
(24) --�
c28)
>
ROBBIE LN
Q
�Qo
c9�
22Lij
z
(24)
I
SCOTT TERR
^
_
(..4 rn
I o Lf)
Q
N N
I
CV CV
=
--
M M
RUSTY RD
N CV
v M
z
w �4
MARK TERRrn
CV N
J
> CV CV
N N
O N
.�
SULLIVAN
CD
0j
O
O
3 KIM AVE ^
C T
CD
c)FTrn
24
z 24 19
(20
21 �00�
(20) N
(27)
J 24)
v
CV N
O
ESTATES DR
22
23
FOREST VIEW (22
(22) N N
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
��
CV (V
O --
N N
MARTHA AVE
w
w N
> CV N
I
z<I•-•
z
w
� � �
w
Q
Q
w
U
W
U
PRENDERGAST LN
w
T
°1 CENTRA L RD
w
Q
z
z
HATLEN AVE
�
o
o
�
3
w
m
�
LINCOLN ST
MARTHA AVE w
>
Q
z
w
Second Post Study
Residential Speed Limit Study and
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study
Zone 11
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect
By Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc.
Second Post Study
Residential Speed Limit Study and
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study
Zone 11
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Prepared for
Village of Mount Prospect
By Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc.
Rosemont, Illinois
September 2009
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables, ii
1.
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
2.
UPDATED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS............................................................................................3
SpeedLimit Modifications.......................................................................................................3
Intersection Traffic Control Modifications...............................................................................4
Functional Classification of the Roadway System...................................................................5
Traffic Volumes and Speed Data..............................................................................................5
IntersectionAccident Data.......................................................................................................6
PedestrianVolume....................................................................................................................6
3.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION..............................................................................8
DailyTraffic Volumes..............................................................................................................9
AverageSpeeds......................................................................................................................12
AccidentData.........................................................................................................................14
PedestrianVolume..................................................................................................................14
4.
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................17
Second Post Study 1 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
List of Figures and Tables
Tables in Report
1. Zone 11 - Comparison of Previous and Current Posted Speed Limits ................................... 4
2. Zone 11 - Comparison of Previous and Current Intersection Traffic Control ........................ 4
3. Zone 11 - Summary of Accident Data.................................................................................... 6
4. Zone 11 - Total Pedestrian Volume Per Intersection.............................................................. 7
5. Locations that Experienced an Increase in Daily Traffic Volumes.......................................11
6. Locations that had an Average Speed of 30 mph or Greater or Experienced a Five mph
or Greater Increase in Average Speed...................................................................................13
7. Location of Accidents in Zone 11 July 2008 through June 2009.......................................14
Figures
All figures are located in the Appendix.
1. Location of Zone 11..........................................................................................................18
2. Current Posted Speed Limits.............................................................................................19
3. Current Intersection Traffic Control.................................................................................20
4. Previous and Current Intersection Traffic Control
...........................................................21
5. Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes.............................................................................22
6. Comparison of Average Speeds........................................................................................23
Second Post Study 11 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
1.
Introduction
The Village of Mount Prospect has embarked on a Village -wide study of the traffic operations
within its residential neighborhoods. In order to accomplish this task, the Village has initiated
two traffic programs which are intent on providing a higher level of standardization, increase
driver expectation and enhance safety as it pertains to traffic regulations. The two programs and
the objective of each are as follows:
• The Residential Speed Limit Program whose objective is to evaluate and determine the
appropriate speed limit for each of the residential roads under the Village's jurisdiction.
• The Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program whose objective is to review,
evaluate and determine the appropriate traffic control signage at all of the intersections
under the Village's jurisdiction.
Each road and/or intersection will be studied based on accepted engineering practices,
conformity with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Policy on Establishing and
Posting Speed Limits, the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the
criteria established by the Village in its Residential Speed Limit Program and Residential
Intersection Traffic Control Program.
Due to the size of the Village and complexity of the programs, the Village has been divided into
eighteen different zones. To date, studies have been completed for all eighteen zones with the
Village staff performing the Residential Speed Limit Studies and Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara,
Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) performing the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Studies.
Second Post Study 1 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
As part of the two programs, the Village is requesting that two to three post (follow-up) studies
be performed for each zone. The intent of the post studies is to (1) review the zone's speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications, (2) evaluate how the roadway system is operating
since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications and
(3) determine whether any locations need further examination (first post study) or any
adjustments are required to the speed limits and/or intersection traffic control (second/third post
study). Per the Village's direction, the first post studies will examine the entire zones while the
second/third post studies will examine only those portions of each zone that are determined to
require additional review and evaluation.
This study summarizes the results and findings of the Second Post Study for Zone 11. Figure 1
illustrates Zone 11 which is bounded by Central Road and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights
border on the north, Busse Road on the east, Golf Road on the south and the Mount
Prospect/Arlington Heights border on the west. (All of the figures for this study are provided at
the end of the report.) Both the Residential Speed Limit Study, conducted by the Village, and the
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, conducted by KLOA, Inc., were completed in
February 2008 with the speed limit and intersection traffic control modifications implemented in
June 2008. The First Post Study was completed in February 2009 with the traffic counts and
speed surveys conducted in October 2008.
Second Post Study 2 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
2.
Updated Traffic Conditions
The transportation conditions in the zone were thoroughly inventoried to obtain a database of the
existing physical and operating characteristics of the roadway system and are documented in the
original studies. In order to update the database of existing conditions since the implementation
of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications, KLOA, Inc. and the Village of
Mount Prospect conducted follow-up field surveys, traffic/pedestrian counts and speed surveys
and collected transportation related information. The following outlines the modifications that
have been implemented within the zone and the additional data that was collected.
Speed Limit Modifications
Zone 11 has a total of 12 miles of roads that are under the Village's jurisdiction. Figure 2
illustrates the posted speed limit per road that was recommended as part of the Residential Speed
Limit Study and has since been implemented. A comparison of the previous and current speed
limits per mile of roadway is shown in Table 1. The entire zone has a speed limit of 25 mph with
20 mph School Zone posted speed limits provided on Lonnquist Boulevard, Estates Drive,
and Deborah Lane within the vicinity of the two schools.
Second Post Study 3 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Table 1
ZONE 11 - COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS AND CURRENT POSTED SPEED LIMITS
Previous Speed Limits Current Speed Limits
Road Miles Percentage Road Miles Percentage
20 mph 2.8 23 % 0 0%
25 mph 2.6 22% 12.0 100%
30 mph 6.6 55% 0 0%
Intersection Traffic Control Modifications
Zone 11 has a total of 77 intersections that are under the Village's jurisdiction. Figure 3
illustrates the intersection traffic control that has been implemented based on the
recommendations of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study. It should be noted that
the original study recommended two-way stop sign control at the Bonita Avenue/Hatlen Avenue
intersection. However, the Village Board decided to maintain the all -way stop sign control at
this intersection. A comparison of the previous and current intersection traffic control is
illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 4 summarizes the intersection traffic control modifications that
occurred within the zone. Currently, two-way/one-way stop sign control or all -way stop sign
control is provided at 72 of the 77 intersections within the zone.
Table 2
ZONE 11 - COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS AND CURRENT
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL
Previous Intersection Current Intersection
Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Control Traffic Control
All -Way Stop Sign Control 4 5
Two-Way/One-Way Stop Sign Control 35 67
Yield Sign Control 2 0
No Intersection Traffic Control 36 5
Total 77 77
Second Post Study 4 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Functional Classification of the Roadway System
All of the zone's roadways are classified as either collector roads and/or local roads. Per the
recommendation of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, the Village currently
classifies the following roadways within the zone as collector roads.
• Lincoln Street
• Lonnquist Boulevard
• Meier Road between Golf Road and Lincoln Street
All of the other zone's roadways are classified as local roads. It should be noted that, prior to the
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, the Village of Mount Prospect classified Lincoln
Street, Lonnquist Boulevard, and the entire length of Meier Road as collector roads.
Traffic Volumes and Speed Data
KLOA, Inc. and the Village of Mount Prospect conducted traffic counts and speed surveys at a
number of locations within the zone. All of the traffic counts/speed surveys were conducted for
a minimum of two days and were broken down by direction and by hour. The following outlines
the number and date of the counts/surveys conducted for each of the studies.
• As part of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study, KLOA, Inc. conducted
counts/surveys at 39 locations within the zone and obtained previous counts/surveys
conducted by the Village of Mount Prospect at nine additional locations within the zone.
The KLOA, Inc. traffic counts/surveys were conducted in October 2007.
• As part of the First Post Study, KLOA, Inc. conducted updated counts/surveys in
October 2008 at 48 locations within the zone.
• As part of the Second Post Study, KLOA, Inc. conducted updated counts/surveys in
April 2009 at fourteen locations within the zone.
Figure 5 provides a comparison of the daily traffic volumes and Figure 6 provides a comparison
of the average speeds within the zone prior to and after the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications.
Second Post Study 5 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Intersection Accident Data
KLOA, Inc. obtained accident data from the Village of Mount Prospect for the zone's roadways
and intersections as part of the original and post studies. The accident data for the Residential
Intersection Traffic Control Study was obtained for a three year period from the beginning of
October 2004 through the end of September 2007, while the accident data for the First and
Second Post Studies was obtained for a twelve month period from July 2008 through June 2009.
Table 3 provides a summary of the accident data.
Table 3
ZONE 11 - SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT DATA
Time Period Accidents Accidents Per Month
Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study
October 2004 through September 2005 4 0.333
October 2005 through September 2006 2 0.167
October 2006 through September 2007 4 0.333
Average Accidents Per Year 3.333 0.278
First and Second Post Studies
July 2008 through June 2009 1 0.083
Refer to Table 7 for the location of accidents that have occurred since the implementation of the speed limit and
traffic control modifications.
Pedestrian Volume
Pedestrian traffic counts were conducted at five intersections within zone as part of the various
studies. The counts were conducted for two hours during the morning peak period and two hours
during the evening peak period in October 2007 (Residential Intersection Traffic Control Study),
October 2008 (First Post Study), and May and September 2009 (Second Post Study).
Table 4 summarizes the results of the pedestrian counts.
Second Post Study 6 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Table 4
ZONE 11 - TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUME PER INTERSECTION
Intersection October 2007
October 2008
May/September 2009
Estates Drive with Deborah Lane
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
29
10
7
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
60
72
47
Estates Drive with Carol Lane
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
8
3
4
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
12
15
25
Estates Drive with Crestwood Avenue
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
15
21
8
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
41
65
36
Lonnquist Boulevard with Meier Road
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
19
24
13
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
23
28
44
Lonnquist Boulevard with Crestwood Avenue'
A.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
16
17
22
P.M. Peak Period (Two Hours)
15
21
148
'It should be noted that when the September 2009 counts were conducted at the Lonnquist Boulevard/Crestwood Avenue
intersection, a school activity was occurring at Clearwater Park.
Approximately
120 of the pedestrians during the P.M. peak
period were attributed to the school activity.
Second Post Study 7 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
3.
Evaluation and Recommendation
The intent of the post studies is to (1) review the zone's speed limit/intersection traffic control
modifications, (2) evaluate how the roadway system is operating since the implementation of the
speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications and (3) determine whether any locations
need further examination (first post study) or any adjustments are required to the speed limits
and/or intersection traffic control (second/third post study). This was accomplished by
reviewing and analyzing the following pre and post operating characteristics within the zone.
• Daily Traffic Volumes
• Average Speeds
• Accident Data
• Pedestrian Volumes
These four operating characteristics were chosen as they provide the most relevant insight to the
primary traffic concerns within any neighborhood: vehicular volume, vehicular speed and
overall vehicular and pedestrian safety. The following provides a detailed evaluation of the four
operating characteristics and determines if any adjustments are required to the speed limits
and/or intersection traffic control.
Second Post Study 8 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Daily Traffic Volumes
Background
First, traffic volumes fluctuate on a daily basis and, as such, any increase or decrease in traffic is
not necessarily attributed to the speed limit and intersection traffic control modifications.
Traffic volumes typically vary by season or month of the year, day of the week and time of the
day particularly if the zone contains land uses other than residential, including commercial
developments, schools, religious facilities, etc. A ten to fifteen percent variation in traffic
volumes is typical in suburban areas.
Second, properly designed residential intersection traffic control plans complement and further
define the hierarchy or functional classification of the roadway system. Collector roads and local
roads are the two types of roadways typically found in the zones. The function of collector roads
are to connect traffic between the local and arterial roads as well as providing access to abutting
land uses. The function of local roads are to provide access between collector/arterial roads and
abutting land uses. Consequently, collector roads should carry a higher volume of traffic than
local roads as they provide the mobility through the zones. One of the primary purposes of the
residential intersection traffic control plan is to more appropriately distribute the traffic along the
roadway system. Therefore, the following traffic flow changes (redistributions) are expected
within the zones as a result of the intersection traffic control modifications.
• The count locations that experience an increase in traffic are expected to primarily occur
along the collector roads whereas the count locations that experience a decrease in traffic
are primarily expected to occur along the local roads.
• The highest percent increase in traffic is primarily expected to occur along the collector
roads as opposed to the local roads.
• Collector roads may experience increases in traffic exceeding the ten to fifteen percent
variation in traffic volumes that is typical in suburban areas.
Evaluation
Figure 5 provides a comparison of the zone's daily traffic volumes prior to and after the
implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications. The following
summarizes the comparison of the traffic counts.
• Of the 48 total locations conducted as part of the First Post Study, the daily traffic
volumes decreased at 31 locations and only increased at seventeen locations compared to
the original counts. The traffic volumes decreased at 65 percent of the count locations.
Second Post Study 9 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
• Of the fourteen locations conducted as part of the Second Post Study, the daily traffic
volumes increased at eight locations and decreased at six locations compared to the
original counts.
Table 5 provides a comparison of the daily traffic volumes and the percent increase at the twenty
locations that experienced an increase in traffic. A closer examination of Table 5 reveals the
following.
• Of the twenty locations that experienced an increase in traffic, only four locations had an
increase of ten percent or more. Therefore, the increase in traffic at the various locations
were generally within the ten to fifteen percent variation in traffic volumes that is typical
in suburban areas.
• Of the four locations that had an increase of ten percent or more, all four occurred on
local roads. However, it should be noted that these locations carry a limited volume of
daily traffic (between 90 and 215 vehicles a day). As such, the daily increase in traffic on
these roads is limited (between 13 and 40 vehicles a day). Assuming that the majority of
the traffic traverses the road within an 18-hour period, this averages to an increase of
approximately one to two vehicles an hour per location.
In conclusion, the evaluation of the traffic counts indicates that (1) the traffic volumes within the
zone as a whole have remained stable, if not decreased, and (2) any increase in traffic was
generally within the expected daily variation. Therefore, the results of the updated traffic counts
do not justify any adjustments to the zone's speed limits and/or intersection traffic control.
Second Post Study 10 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Table 5
LOCATIONS THAT EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
October 2008
April 2009
Roadway
October 2007
Daily
Percent
Daily
Percent
Location
Classification
Daily Traffic
Traffic
Increasel
Traffic
Increase'
Lincoln between
Haden and Crestwood
Collector
21213
2,217
0.18%
2,125
decrease
Lincoln between
Helena and Leonard
Collector
21283
2J 30
decrease
21316
1.45%
Meier between
Lincoln and Scott
Collector
21112
21152
1.89%
na
na
Haden between
Central and Grindle
Local
600
609
1.50%
637
6.17%
Prairie between
White Oak and Lincoln
Local
93
101
8.60%
na
na
Leonard between
White Oak and Lincoln
Local
94
80
decrease
102
8.51 %
Hickory between
White Oak and Lincoln
Local
129
131
1.55%
na
na
Audrey between
Connie and Bonita
Local
175
195
11.42%
215
22.86%
Connie between
Haden and Audrey
Local
132
170
28.79%
160
21.21 %
Scott between
Meier and Carol
Local
91
99
8.79%
na
na
Mark between
Meier and Carol
Local
574
628
9.41 %
na
na
Carol between
Mark and Estates
Local
542
567
4.61 %
na
na
Estates between
Deborah and Crestwood
Local
492
531
7.93%
na
na
Crestwood between
Martin and Lonnquist
Local
615
627
1.95%
633
2.93%
Crestwood between
Lincoln and Robbie
Local
364
307
decrease
366
0.55%
Rusty between
Robbie and Crestwood
Local
275
290
5.45%
na
na
Estates between
Crestwood and Haden
Local
416
432
3.85%
na
na
Myrtle between
Crestwood and Hatlen
Local
116
123
6.03%
na
na
Robbie between
Crestwood and Rusty
Local
77
90
16.88%
91
18.18%
Deborah between Rusty
and Estates
Local
175
196
12.00%
170
decrease
'Equals percent increase in traffic compared to the original traffic counts (October 2007).
Second Post Study 11 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Average Speeds
Background
While travel speeds are more consistent than traffic volumes, they will vary by season or month
of the year, day of the week and time of the day. As such, any increase or decrease in travel
speeds is not necessarily attributed to the speed limit and intersection traffic control
modifications. The main factors affecting travel speeds are the roadway's physical and operating
characteristics, including width of road, number of travel lanes, hills, curves, roadway surface
and length of free flow conditions. Many of these attributes are fixed within the zone's
infrastructure and are generally difficult and/or costly to change/modify. Furthermore, the courts
typically will not uphold a speeding ticket unless it is in excess of ten mph above the posted
speed limit. Therefore, travel speeds within five mph of the posted speed limit are generally
considered acceptable within the industry and with most communities.
Evaluation
Figure 6 provides a comparison of the average speeds within the zone prior to and after the
implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications. Of the 48 locations
conducted as part of the First Post Study and the fourteen locations conducted as part of the
Second Post Study, only six locations had an observed average speed of either 30 mph or greater
(three locations) or experienced a five mph or greater increase in its average speed
(three locations). Table 6 shows the six locations that had an observed average speed of either
30 mph or greater or experienced a five mph or greater increase in average speed. It should be
noted that the three locations (five directions of flow) that had an observed speed of 30 mph or
greater, the observed speed along three of the directions of flow remained the same or decreased.
In addition, the three locations that experienced a five mph increase in average speed, the highest
observed average speed was 23 mph which is below the 25 mph posted speed limit. In general,
the average speeds observed in the zone were 26 mph or less and that the change in the observed
average speeds was three mph or less. Lastly, many locations either (1) had an observed average
speed of less than 25 mph and/or (2) experienced a decrease in the observed average speed.
Second Post Study 12 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Table 6
LOCATIONS THAT HAD AN AVERAGE SPEED OF 30 MPH OR GREATER
OR EXPERIENCED A FIVE MPH OR GREATER INCREASE IN AVERAGE SPEED
October 2008
April 2009
October 2007
Average Increase in
Average Increase in
Average
Speed Average
Speed Average
Location Direction Speed (mph)
(mph) Speed (mph)'
(mph) Speed (mph)'
Lincoln
between
Crestwood Eastbound 33
31 -2
31 -2
and Hatlen
Lincoln
between
Crestwood Westbound 28
28 0
31 3
and Hatlen
Lincoln
between
Hickory and Eastbound 30
30 0
29 -1
Leonard
Lincoln
between
Hickory and Westbound 31
30 -1
31 0
Leonard
Meier between
Lincoln and Southbound 28
30 +2
28 0
White Oak
Leonard
between
Lincoln and Southbound 18
23 5
21 3
White Oak
Robbie
between
Crestwood Eastbound 16
17 1
21 5
and Rusty
Martin
between
Crestwood Eastbound 18
23 5
21 3
and Hatlen
'Equals increase in average speed compared to the original speed surveys (October 2007).
In conclusion, the results of the speed surveys indicate that the average speeds within the zone
have generally remained constant and are within the acceptable range.
Therefore, the results of
the updated speed surveys do not justify
any adjustments to the
zone's speed limits or
intersection traffic control.
Second Post Study 13 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
Accident Data
In the twelve month period since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic
control modifications, the zone experienced a total of one accident. Table 7 summarizes the
locations of the accident. It should be noted that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) defines a crash problem as follows when warranting an all -way stop sign control at an
intersection.
A crash problem, as identified by five or more reported crashes in a 12-month
period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation.
As such, one accident at an intersection or one total accident within a zone is very low and does
not signify a problem. Furthermore, Table 3 shows that the average number of accidents on a
per month basis has decreased within the zone during the twelve months since the
implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications.
Table 7
LOCATION OF ACCIDENTS IN ZONE 11
JULY 2008 THROUGH JUKE 2009
Intersection Number of Accidents
Meier Road and Connie Lane 1
In conclusion, the zone as a whole and each of the intersections had a very low incident of
accidents since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications.
Therefore, the evaluation of the accident data indicates that the speed limit and intersection
traffic control modifications are promoting the efficient and orderly flow of traffic within the
zone and does not justify any adjustments to the zone's speed limits or intersection traffic
control.
Pedestrian Volume
A comparison of the counts show that the volume of pedestrian activity at several of the
intersections have experienced some fluctuation in pedestrian activity. However, these
intersections are generally near the schools and/or park in the zone. Further, the traffic control at
these intersections have remained the same or have been improved as part of the program.
As such, the fluctuation in pedestrian activity is mostly likely due to the activity at the schools or
the park or possibly weather related as opposed to the speed limit and intersection traffic control
modifications. Consequently, the results of the updated pedestrian counts do not justify any
adjustments to the zone's speed limits and/or intersection traffic control.
Second Post Study 14 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
4.
Conclusion
This study summarizes the results and findings of the Second Post Study for Zone 11. The intent
of the post studies is to (1) review the zone's speed limit/intersection traffic control
modifications, (2) evaluate how the roadway system is operating since the implementation of the
speed limit/intersection traffic control modifications and (3) determine whether any locations
need further examination (first post study) or any adjustments are required to the speed limits
and/or intersection traffic control (second/third post study). Zone 11 consists of the
neighborhood bounded by Central Road and the Mount Prospect/Arlington Heights border on the
north, Busse Road on the east, Golf Road on the south, and the Mount Prospect/Arlington
Heights border on the west.
The results and findings of the First and Second Post Studies indicate that the operating
characteristics within the zone have generally improved since the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications. While some roadways have experienced a slight
increase in traffic and/or observed average speed, the number of locations has been very limited
and generally within the expected daily variations and/or acceptable ranges. Furthermore, the
positive impacts (reduced number of accidents and traffic volumes and average speeds generally
within acceptable ranges) on the operation of the zone's roadway system far out weigh the
limited number of locations that experienced a slight increase in traffic or average speed.
As summarized below, the speed limit and intersection control traffic modifications are
promoting a more efficient and orderly flow of traffic within the zone.
Second Post Study 15 KLOA, Inc.
Zone 11 September 2009
• Daily Traffic Volumes. The daily traffic volumes decreased at 31 locations and only
increased at seventeen locations conducted as part of the First Post Study and increased at
eight locations and decreased at six locations as part of the Second Post Study.
Furthermore, only four locations had an increase of ten percent or more. Therefore, the
evaluation of the traffic counts indicates that (1) the traffic volumes within the zone as a
whole have remained stable, if not decreased, and (2) any increase in traffic was
generally within the expected daily variation.
• Average Travel Speeds. Only six locations had an observed average speed of 30 mph or
greater (three locations) and/or experienced a five mph increase in its average speed
(three locations) or greater since the implementation of the speed limit/intersection traffic
control modifications. In general, the average speeds observed in the zone were 26 mph
or less and the change in the observed average speeds was three mph or less.
Therefore, the average speeds within the zone have generally remained constant and are
within the acceptable range.
• Accident Data. In the twelve month period since the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications, the zone experienced one accident which
indicates that the zone as a whole and each of the intersections had a very low incident of
accidents. Furthermore, the average number of accidents on a per -month basis has
decreased within the zone during the twelve months. Therefore, the accident data
indicates that the speed limit and intersection traffic control modifications are promoting
the efficient and orderly flow of traffic within zone.
• Pedestrian Volume. The pedestrian activity at several intersections have experienced
some fluctuation in pedestrian activity since the implementation of the speed
limit/intersection traffic control modifications. However, the fluctuation in pedestrian
activity is most likely due to the activity at the schools or the park or possibly weather
related as opposed to the speed limit and traffic control modifications.
In conclusion, the findings of the First Post Study and the Second Post Study do not justify any
adjustments to the speed limit or intersection traffic control.
Second Post Study - Zone 11 - Mount Prospect - REPORT - August 2009 maw
Second Post Study
Zone 11
16
KLOA, Inc.
September 2009
Appendix
FIG1,3RE
....,A ,I F.Zll I
OC
. . .........II
Viflage., of Mount Prospect
Reflid c n, lial Speed LJ m it P rogra m
I , I RECOMMENDATION MAP
mir= Moulm'smasim
iT
N�
W
f
M NO 4"PIR if MAMMA 'RMW/ W, W Pl 91 IN or)NW 91 IN "I
INN"
oil
al Ij PCW ITA XV
Po
001
........ . . .....
VERDE (A wwilorrayi
0M, *1'flrrul
al.
f
o10 oe
Yid
O l'
IN LI P0
T
16-
Z,
rE, U4 silusamm"Wid
oil on
MAW MR,
WIN P5 MIMPTIMAMMIR
j< I'm GTI
AV 11
rkXtrN)kM1:T
A
"T
Lwwwg maivol'sona, LA" fox U4 nlo=uucr 'I owod ATe�`,r, JX% V
Iwo iddiiiiliaahl
hilil"i
ti
WI R
Wf,�,
V
IMMM, �Wgwgli�pp,
LN inswulaconow
r�.-q(A �T I P4
LLM
tN
W
■
1j
CL
It-
G 171
- END
10 raph
20 ailpt."I
20 rriph School Zone,;
25 mph
30 mph I p er V711(xje, -Code)
ajow, 30 rn p h pc,�,f r III j'7 o, j s. Ja w)
II' 4'4111Ww1w 3,55 M IIh,
40mpfi,
xww 45,mph
W
CD
0
0
°1 CENTRA L RD
U
(D
Q
U
HAVEN ST
JODY CT
U
E-ii
LAWRENCE LN
w �
Q
Q �
w w
U
W
U
PRENDERGAST LN
79
T
Z
SCOTT TERR
N
H
MARK TERR
SULLIVAN
'\CT
z
�t
0
0
0
3
w
U
LINCOLN ST
VERDE DR
w
CD
0
0
-0
U
(-D
Q
U
HAVEN ST
JODY CT
U
E-ii
°1 CENTRA L RD
SCOTT TERR
MARK TERR
SULLIVAN
'\CT
LAWRENCE LN
w 0
Q
Q
W
w w
U :Z:
W
U
PRENDERGAST LN
w
~ zI
T
�t
0
0
0
3
w
U
LINCOLN ST
VERDE DR
ROBBIE LN Q
z
w
Q
RUSTY RO
z w
Q
o 411,
Li
m 3 KIM AVE
W �p
o
W
z �
o ESTATES OR
Q
U
FOREST VIEW
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
MARTHA AVE w
>
w �
> z
Q w
LEGEND
w
Q
Q
1
0
0
°1 CENTRAL RD
(275)
0
(\J � Cal r,4,)
N
O 0
u
122831 -1 1 m I
(2130)
2 316 7 CD
_ N
N
576
HAVEN ST
(504)
( JODY CT
U
0
384
LAWRENCE LN
wc337)
0
O (\j
J w
w� w
w
U
384
PRENDERGAST LN
(339)
w
(\1 LQQ w
__j0Q�oQ
z
w w
o ~
Q =
GRINDLE DR
�O
(2197)
N
C\,' 91
SCOTT TERR
(99)
574
MARK TERR
F-(6- 2 8)
SULLIVAN
�C T
N
Q
Ln
z
�J
0
o�
CCD)
w`
U
144
� VERDE DR
cn (130)
J
W
Q
S
333
HATLEN AVE
LINCOLN ST
(2217)
Q0
0Q9 121251
77 .__.
(V
w
ROBBIE LN
co
Q
(90)
C,\'
W
1911
336
L
1 275
1 1
1=1
RUSTY RD
(330)
J
>(290)
CD 117
o
inCD
m �9 O
3 KIM AVE
CD
(102)
J
in
2
L-LJ
416
J
o
ESTATES OR
�vJ
(432)
C\,J
�S
FOREST VIEW
i
116
ELEMENTARY
MYRTLE AVE
(123)
105
1
MARTHA AVE w
w (84)
�
Q
z
w
LEGEND
w
Q
Q
1
O
C.
N.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. F
N
18 19
(23) (22)
26 25 20 22 1211 201 21 20 28
(26) (25) (19) (17) (19) (20) (30
�' ^ 1281
M rn oM
.� u
I23
20
oorn
M MN
CD
28
Q
(27)
U
U-) 00
N N
NQ\/FNI qT
°1 CENTRA L RD
0
w
w
27
(27
C25
w
z �
� z
w w
26
Q(27)
[291
GRINDLE DR
I�
lIj`9J �
9 �
.� rn
VERDE DR
c rn
J N �--�
w
Q
HATLEN AVE
o 19
L�
N N
(21)
C29]N Nc°w O°°2022) m M
Lij� ,_,
LINCOLN ST
00
22 23 M
c23 (24)27 `u
123 251 r— 0-)r—
(28) w
ROBBIE LN Q
oLo 22 z
SCOTT TERR " `N' (24) ��
_ .,
I` a0 �4 M Lo U-) Q
N N CV CV
-- RUSTY RD
M M
N CV v M z w �4
MARK TERRLn
N N J > N N
CV N O N
.� O
CD
O
SULLIVAN 00 3 KIM AVE ^
C T CDcr, oo rn
z
J
19 21 w `"
24 z 4 °C
2 (20 (20) N°O� N N
(27) J(24) --
O C22 23 ESTATES DR
22 23
FOREST VIEW (22 (22) N N
ELEMENTARY MYRTLE AVE
N (V
O --�
N N
MARTHA AVE w
w N Q
CV CV z
Q ^ LW
0-) 0-) --j
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS
FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER
DATE: AUGUST 16, 2007
SUBJECT: SEE-GWUN AVENUE SPEED HUMP PROJECT — FINAL REPORT
I N T R O D U C T I O N
In January 2006, the Engineering Staff hosted a Traffic Workshop with the Village Board of Trustees and
Safety Commission. One of the items of discussion was a request from residents for speed humps along
See-Gwun Avenue to address the ongoing concerns over vehicular volume and speed. At the time, the
Village did not have any speed humps on public streets. The Village Board of Trustees decided to
proceed with a project that would bring about a series of speed humps along See-Gwun Avenue between
Lincoln Street and Golf Road. The project would be labeled a "test project" as the Engineering Division
would evaluate the speed humps over a one-year period. Then the Village Board of Trustees would
decide the permanency of the speed humps on See-Gwun Avenue as well as the direction for future
considerations on other streets in Mount Prospect. To that end, seven speed humps were installed in May
2006. Over the next year, the Engineering Division monitored the effect of the speed humps on both See-
Gwun Avenue and its surrounding streets. This was accomplished by gathering vehicular volume and
speed data, soliciting input from the neighborhood, making visual observations, and receiving feedback
from the Fire Department, Police Department and Public Works Department. This report provides results
of the traffic studies, analysis of their findings, and the Engineering Division's recommendations.
B A C K G R O U N D
See -Gwen Avenue, a collector street, provides the only connection between Golf Road (major arterial)
and Lincoln Street (collector) in its neighborhood. This is because it is the only north -south street that has
a bridge over Weller Creek. There are 98 homes that abut this 0.8 mile stretch of See -Gwen Avenue.
Two major traffic generators along See -Gwen Avenue are the Mount Prospect Golf Course (at Council
Trail) and Lincoln Junior High School (at Lincoln Street). North of Lonnquist Boulevard, See -Gwen
Avenue is 26' wide (back -of -curb to back -of -curb). This section of the street is curvilinear and has a hill
immediately south of the bridge. South of Lonnquist Boulevard, See -Gwen Avenue is 31' wide (back -of -
curb to back -of -curb) and is relatively flat and straight. Between Lincoln Street and Golf Road, there are
stop signs on See-Gwun Avenue at Council Trail and Lonnquist Boulevard. The speed limit is 25 mph
along the entire length of See-Gwun Avenue. And finally, there is a complete sidewalk system along
both sides of the street.
0
w
D
m
Page 2 of 11
See-Gwun Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
PRE- SPEED HUMP TRAFFIC STUD Y
Volume/Speed Data
In April 2006, before the speed humps were installed, vehicular volume and speed data were gathered at
four locations on See-Gwun Avenue, two locations on We -Go Trail (one block to the west), and two
locations on Na-Wa-Ta Avenue (one block to the east). The map below shows the locations of both the
speed humps and mechanical traffic counters.
>9 STOP SIGN
SPEED HUMP
%////,%////%//%//%//%////// TRAFFIC COUNTER
BLACKHAWK DR
J z
0 J
W
OO GREENBRIAR DR Q.
wr)
0 LU
LU LU 0
LONNQUIST BLVD
LINCOLN ST
GOLF COURSE
00
W
OC
0
D
J
ROBIN LN
J
W
0LU
UJ
coUJ
oc
w
900
>
Q
-
GREENACRESLN
>
>
Q
U
O
>
Q
~
Q
Q
Q
UJ
>
>
Q
w
>
Q
z
O
J
D
Y
Q
Z
%/% D
%%//%
z
U
a
_ 0
GLENN LN — — —
�'
g
w
w
cn
44
GOLF RD
Page 3 of 11
See -Gwen Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
The results of the pre- speed hump traffic study revealed the following:
Before Speed Humps (4106)
Street
Between
And
Avg.
Daily
Tr
Avg.
Speed
(mph)
851h
Percentile
Speed
(mph)
See-Gwun Ave
Lincoln St
Go-Wando Tr
1013
27
31
See-Gwun Ave
Go-Wando Tr
Shabonee Tr
1178
25
30
See-Gwun Ave
Council Tr
Lonnquist Blvd
2078
26
30
See-Gwun Ave
Sunset Rd
Golf Rd
999
31
36
We -Go Tr
Lincoln St
Go-Wando Tr
514
25
31
We -Go Tr
Sunset Rd
Golf Rd
248
26
32
Na-Wa-Ta Ave
Lincoln St
Go-Wando Tr
269
23
28
Na-Wa-Ta Ave
Sunset Rd
Golf Rd
257
25
31
Resident Survey
Also as part of the traffic study residents on See-Gwun Avenue were surveyed to gauge the severity of the
traffic issues. Questions ranged from traffic volume and speeding concerns to pedestrian and bicycle
safety. Also, there were questions concerning the expected impact speed humps would have on the street.
65 of the 98 properties (66%) along See-Gwun Avenue responded to the first survey. Below are the
results of that survey.
Questions
Range
Average
Score
I — very slow
1
How fast do you perceive the overall traffic traveling on See-Gwun Avenue?
5 — at speed limit
7.6
10 — extremel ast
I — very little
2
How much traffic do you believe there to be on See-Gwun Avenue?
5 — reasonable amount
7.6
10 — way too much
I — very unsafe
3
How safe is See-Gwun Avenue for pedestrians to cross the street?
5 — somewhat safe
5.5
10 — very safe
I — very unsafe
4
How safe is See-Gwun Avenue for bicyclists to use the street?
5 — somewhat safe
4.8
10 — very safe
5
How much impact do you believe speed humps will have on reducing the
I — none
5 —
6.6
overall speed of vehicles?
some
10 - tremendous
6
How much impact do you believe speed humps will have on reducing the
I — none
5 —
5.0
number of vehicles?
some
10 - tremendous
7
How concerned are you with the potential impact speed humps may have on
I — not
5 — somewhat
4.7
response time by emergency vehicles?
10 — extremely
Page 4 of 11
See-Gwun Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
8
How concerned are you with the potential impact speed humps may have on
1— not
5 — somewhat
5.6
noise caused by breaking and accelerating?
10 - extremely
9
How concerned are you with the potential impact speed humps may have on
I — not
5 — somewhat
5.6
aesthetics of the neighborhood?
10 - extremely
10
How concerned are you with the potential impact speed humps may have on
I — not
5 — somewhat
4.1
loss of on -street parking (on speed hump)?
10 - extremely
How confident are you the positive impact of speed humps will outweigh any
1— sure it won't
11
potential concerns you may have?
5 — unsure
5.9
10 - totally confident
Based on the results of the survey, it appeared residents perceived both an issue with the amount of traffic
and the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. These concerns, in turn, affected the perceived safety
for pedestrians and bicyclists. And a majority of the returned surveys believed the speed humps would
have a positive affect on the current traffic conditions. After completion of this initial traffic study, seven
speed humps were installed along See-Gwun Avenue per the direction of the Village Board of Trustees.
POST- SPEED HUMP TRAFFIC S T U D I E S
Volume/Speed Data
In September 2006 and April 2007, the Engineering Division once again performed a traffic study to
determine the effect of the speed humps. First, vehicular volume and speed data were gathered through
the use of mechanical traffic counters. Of the four locations on See -Gwen Avenue, one traffic counter
was placed within 50' of a speed hump (400 block), one was placed midway between a stop sign and
speed hump (700 block), and two were placed midway between two speed humps (500 & 900 blocks).
The results are highlighted below.
Before Speed Humps (4106)
After Speed Humps (9106)
After Speed Humps (04107)
Sheet
Between
And
Avg.
Daily
Traffic
Avg.
Speed
(mph)
85th
Percentile
Speed
(mph)
Avg.
Daily
Tr a lc
Avg.
Speed
(mph)
85"
Percentile
Speed
m h
Avg.
Daily
Traffic
Avg.
Speed
m h
85th
Percentile
Speed
m h
See-Gwun Ave
Lincoln St
Go-Wando Tr
1013
27
31
593
17*
21 *
515
18*
22*
See-Gwun Ave
Go-Wando Tr
Shabonee Tr
1178
25
30
704
22**
26**
619
22**
27**
See-Gwun Ave
Council Tr
Lonnquist Blvd
2078
26
30
1750
25***
29***
1732
25***
30***
See-Gwun Ave
Sunset Rd
Golf Rd
999
31
36
605
23**
28**
556
23**
28**
We -Go Tr
Lincoln St
Go-Wando Tr
514
25
31
613
25
31
713
25
30
We -Go Tr
Sunset Rd
Golf Rd
248
26
32
351
26
31
377
26
32
Na-Wa-Ta Ave
Lincoln St
Go-Wando Tr
269
23
28
278
23
29
295
24
30
Na-Wa-Ta Ave
Sunset Rd
Golf Rd
257
25
31
303
25
32
316
25
32
* traffic counter located within 50' of speed hump
** traffic counter located midway between speed humps
* * * traffic counter located midway between speed hump and stop sign
Since installation of the speed humps, both vehicular volume and speeds are lower on See-Gwun Avenue.
At the two locations where speed data was gathered between two speed humps (the 500 and 900 blocks),
the average speeds decreased between 3 and 8 mph respectively during both post -studies. Along the 400
block, the traffic counter was placed 50' from the speed hump for the purpose of gauging speeds just
before vehicles traverse the speed hump. There are 15 mph advisory speed limit signs at each of the
Page 5 of 11
See -Gwen Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
speed humps. The average recorded speed was 17 mph during the interim study and 18 mph during the
latest study. And the fourth traffic counter was placed between the stop sign at Council Trail and the
speed hump at the top of the hill near Lonnquist Boulevard (the 700 block). While the spacing between
the speed humps is typically 350' to 450', the distance between the stop sign and speed hump on this
block is 575' . The average recorded speed was down 1 mph during both post -studies.
Another component of the traffic studies was to determine the effect speed humps would have on
reducing excessive speeds. The Engineering Division, therefore, examined the percentage of motorists
traveling at 32 mph or greater before and after installation of the speed humps. The table below
highlights the impact the speed humps have had on reducing excessive speeding.
Percentage of Recorded Speeds 32 mph or Greater
Location Along See-Gwun Avenue
Study Date
April 2006
Before Speed Humps
September 2006
After Speed Humps
April 2007
After Speed Humps
400 block (between Lincoln St & Go-Wando Tr) *
12.8
0.0
0.2
500 block (between Go-Wando Tr & Shabonee Tr)**
6.3
0.9
1.9
700 block (between Council Tr & Lonnquist Blvd)***
7.4
4.9
6.4
900 block (between Sunset Rd & Golf Rd) * *
43.9
2.2
3.7
+,Pfi- r.r.■ir.+or 1-r.n+a� Gnu
L10.1111� % VLillut.l 1Vl CLU%�U VV1L11111 .JV V1 3p%l % U 11U111P
** traffic counter located midway between speed humps
* * * traffic counter located midway between speed hump and stop sign
At three of the four traffic counter locations on See-Gwun Avenue, vehicular volume was down at least
39% during the interim study in September 2006 and at least 44% during the latest study in April 2007.
The fourth location was near the bridge where there are no other north -south alternatives to get across
Weller Creek in the neighborhood. Still, volume was down nearly 20% during both post -studies. And at
all four locations, vehicular volume decreased between the interim study and the latest study.
On We -Go Trail and Na-Wa-Ta Avenue, the average recorded speeds at three of the four traffic counter
locations did not change during both post -studies. During the latest traffic study, the average speed on the
400 block of Na-Wa-Ta Avenue increased by 1 mph. Average daily traffic increased on We -Go Trail and
Na-Wa-Ta Avenue but not equal to the difference in volume on See-Gwun Avenue. Vehicular volume
increased anywhere between 3% and 42% from the interim study and between 10% and 52% from the
latest study. It is believed that other north -south streets in the neighborhood such as Lancaster Avenue
and Can-Dota Avenue have also experienced an increase in traffic since installation of the speed humps.
And at all four locations, vehicular volume increased between the interim study and the latest study.
Resident Surveys
In October 2006 and April 2007, follow-up surveys were sent to the See -Gwen Avenue residents to gauge
the impact of the speed humps. 62 properties (63%) responded to the October 2006 survey and 63
properties (64%) responded to the April 2007 survey. Overall, residents have perceived lower vehicular
volume and speed (Questions 1 & 2). They also believe the street to be safer for pedestrians and
bicyclists (Questions 3 & 4). With respect to fulfilling expectations, it appears residents perceive the
speed humps to have had less effect in reducing vehicular speeds yet have had more effect in reducing
vehicular volume when comparing pre- and post- speed hump surveys (Questions 5 & 6). With respect to
other issues that can be associated with speed humps, residents continue to be somewhat concerned about
emergency response time, noise pollution, aesthetics and loss of on -street parking (Questions 7 — 10).
Page 6 of 11
See -Gwen Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
A majority of residents on See-Gwun Avenue appear to still be satisfied with the speed humps but support
has declined over time (Question 12). 56% of the returned surveys prefer that the speed humps remain.
One interesting note, however, is there appears to be two groups of opinion separated by Lonnquist
Boulevard. A vast maj ority of those residents north of the street favor the speed humps while a vast
majority south of the street wishes to have them removed. The table below shows the results of the
surveys.
See-Gwun Avenue
April 2006
Oct 2006
April 2007
Questions
Range
Average
Average
Average
Score
Score
Score
I - very slow
1
How fast do you perceive the overall traffic traveling on See-Gwun Avenue?
S - at speed limit
7.6
6.0
5.9
10 - extremel ast
I - very little
2
How much traffic do you believe there to be on See-Gwun Avenue?
5 - reasonable amount
7.6
6.5
6.4
10 - way too much
I - very unsafe
3
How safe is See-Gwun Avenue for pedestrians to cross the street?
S - somewhat safe
5.5
6.0
6.2
10 - very safe
I - very unsafe
4
How safe is See-Gwun Avenue for bicyclists to use the street?
5 - somewhat safe
4.8
5.5
5.8
10 - very safe
5
How much impact do you believe the speed humps (will) have had on
I - none
5 -
6.6
6.0
5.9
reducing the overall speed of vehicles?
some
10 - tremendous
6
How much impact do you believe the speed humps (will) have had on
I - none
S -
5.0
5.6
5.4
reducing the number of vehicles?
some
10 - tremendous
7
How concerned are you with the potential impact speed humps may have
I - not
5 - somewhat
4.7
4.0
4.7
on response time by emergency vehicles?
10 - extremely
8
How (concerned) displeased are you with the impact they (may) have on
I - not
5 - somewhat
5.6
3.9
4.6
noise caused by breaking and accelerating?
10 - extremely
9
How (concerned) displeased are you with the impact they (may) have on
I - not
5 - somewhat
5.6
4.5
5.0
aesthetics of the neighborhood?
10 - extremely
10
How (concerned) displeased are you with the impact they (may) have on
I - not
5 - somewhat
4.1
2.8
3.8
loss of on -street parking (on speed hump)?
10 - extremely
How confident are you the positive impact of speed humps will outweigh
I - sure it won't
11
any potential concerns you may have?
5 - unsure
5.9
10 - totally confident
I - very unsatisfied
12
How satisfied are you with the speed humps on your street?
5 - somewhat satisfied
5.9
5.2
10 - extremely satisfied
13
Would you prefer the Village leave the speed humps in place or remove
leave
34
them?
remove
27
In October 2006 and April 2007, surveys were also sent to the 157 residents along We -Go Trail and Na-
Wa-Ta Avenue in the project area. 77 properties (49%) responded to the October 2006 survey and 73
properties (46%) responded to the April 2007 survey. Overall, residents on these streets indicated they
believe there to be an increase in vehicular volume and speed since installation of the speed humps
(Questions 5 & 6). Residents were evenly split on their support (or lack of) for the speed humps on See-
Page 7 of 11
See-Gwun Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
Gwun Avenue but a majority did not believe speed humps on their street or throughout the neighborhood
would have a positive impact (Questions 7 — 9). The table below shows the results of the surveys.
We -Go Trail & Na-Wa-Ta Avenue
Oct 2006
April 2007
Questions
Range
Average
Average
Score
Score
I — very slow
1
How fast do you perceive the overall traffic traveling on your street?
5 — at speed limit
6.3
6.4
10 — extremel ast
I — very little
2
How much traffic do you believe there to be on your street?
5 — reasonable amount
5.8
6.0
10 — way too much
I — very unsafe
3
How safe is your street for pedestrians to cross?
5 — somewhat safe
6.9
6.8
10 — very safe
1 — very unsafe
4
How safe is your street for bicyclists to use?
5 — somewhat safe
6.8
6.7
10 — very safe
5
Since installation of the speed humps on See-Gwun Avenue, how have they
I — extremely lower
5 — no change
6.2
6.2
affected vehicle speed on your street?
10 — extremely higher
6
Since installation of the speed humps on See-Gwun Avenue, how have they
I — extremely lower
5 — no change
6.6
6.6
affected traffic volume on your street?
10 — extremely higher
Yes
Yes — 26
Yes — 26
7
Do you support the speed humps on See-Gwun Avenue?
No
No — 32
No — 24
Unsure
Unsure - 18
Unsure - 21
1 — extremely negative
8
What impact do you believe speed humps would have on your street?
5 — none
4.4
4.9
10 — extremely positive
What impact do you believe speed humps throughout your neighborhood
I — extremely negative
9
would have on your neighborhood?
5 — none
10 — extremely positive
4.1
4.7
A N A L Y S I S
Positive Impact
The two issues raised by residents of See-Gwun Avenue have been excessive vehicular speed and volume
along their street. While the primary purpose of speed humps is to slow down traffic, they also can lower
vehicular volume as some motorists will choose alternative routes. And based on the results of the traffic
data and resident surveys, the vehicular speed and volume are lower on See-Gwun Avenue.
The 500 and 900 blocks of See-Gwun Avenue had traffic counters placed midway between two speed
humps. On the 500 block, the average speed decreased from 25 mph to 22 mph. And on the 900 block,
the average speed decreased from 31 mph to 23 mph. In addition, excessive speeding decreased
significantly along the 900 block. Before the speed humps, 43.9% of motorists were traveling 32 mph or
greater. From the April 2007 study, only 3.7% of motorists were traveling 32 mph or greater. From the
residents' perspective, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1-very slow, 5-at speed limit, 10-extremely fast), when asked
about the perceived vehicular speed the average score decreased by 1.7 comparing the survey before the
speed humps to the latest survey in April 2007.
At the four traffic counter locations along See-Gwun Avenue, volume decreased between 16% (700
block) and 49% (400 block). This equates to a decrease in approximately 350 — 550 vehicles per day
Page8of11
See -Gwen Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
depending on the section of See-Gwun Avenue. From the residents' perspective, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1-
very little, 5-reasonable amount, 10-way too much), when asked about the perceived vehicular volume the
average score decreased by 1.2 comparing the survey before the speed humps to the latest survey in April
2007.
Not only have the speed humps impacted the vehicular speed and volume along See -Gwen Avenue,
residents have also perceived an increase in pedestrian and bicycle safety. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1-very
unsafe, 5-somewhat safe, 10-very safe), when asked about the perceived pedestrian safety the average
score increased by 0.7 comparing the survey before the speed humps to the latest survey in April 2007.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (1-very unsafe, 5-somewhat safe, 10-very safe), when asked about the perceived
bicycle safety the average score increased by 1.0 comparing the survey before the speed humps to the
latest survey in April 2007.
Negative Impact
According to the Village Code, See-Gwun Avenue is a collector street. It provides the only north -south
connection between Lincoln Street and Golf Road within the neighborhood. It also provides direct access
to the Mount Prospect Golf Course. And as a collector street, mobility should be encouraged to promote
the hierarchy of street classifications within the neighborhood. While vehicular volume has decreased on
See-Gwun Avenue to the support of residents along the street, this redistribution of traffic is not
necessarily beneficial to the neighborhood. Comparing the traffic study before speed humps to the latest
study in April 2007, vehicular volume on the adjacent parallel streets have increased between 10% and
52%. This equates to an increase in approximately 30 — 200 vehicles per day depending on the street.
The 400 block of We -Go Trail which is a narrower street than See-Gwun Avenue now experiences more
daily traffic than all studied blocks on See-Gwun Avenue except at the bridge (700 block). Speed humps
are known as a volume reducer because some motorists will choose alternate routes. When placed on a
collector street, a larger number of vehicles will shift to other streets compared to when they are placed on
a smaller local street simply because a collector street experiences more traffic to begin with. Even
residents on We -Go Trail and Na-Wa-Ta Avenue commented in the surveys a perceived increase in
vehicular volume on their streets.
Another issue with speed humps is their affect on all motorists not just those speeding excessively. Often
times, a few careless motorists will give the impression there is an overall speeding problem on a street.
Case in point, the traffic counter on the 500 block of See-Gwun Avenue recorded only 6% of vehicles
traveling 32 mph or greater before the speed humps. While the solution should be to correct the behavior
in this small percentage of motorists, speed humps cause all motorists to drive differently. They force the
driver to traverse them at no more than 15 mph, well below the posted speed limit of 25 mph. This rise
and fall in speed every 350' to 450' can frustrate motorists and also increases noise pollution in the
neighborhood caused by constant braking and accelerating of vehicles.
Emergency vehicle response also continues to be a concern for the both the Fire Department and Police
Department, especially with speed humps on a collector street. Use of collector streets to get to an
emergency in a neighborhood is essential and speed humps increase their response time as detailed by the
Fire Department in their attached memos. The jarring going over the speed humps can affect the
passengers and also wears the emergency vehicles causing an increase in maintenance costs. Even
residents expressed in the surveys some concern with potential delays with emergency vehicles caused by
the speed humps. Comments from the Fire Department and Police Department are in the Appendix.
The Public Works Department did not express significant concern with the speed humps from an
operational standpoint. Street sweepers and snow plow trucks travel at a reduced speed and their drivers
did not share any difficult experiences over the past year. However, larger snow falls and speed humps
throughout the Village could pose concerns for their services. From a maintenance standpoint, annual
repair to the asphalt and pavement markings would be necessary. This would be an added cost to the
Page 9 of 11
See -Gwen Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
Village Budget. Pictures in the Appendix show damage to the speed humps as a result of snow plows. In
addition, comments from the Public Works Department are in the Appendix.
A final issue that is worth mentioning is aesthetics. Some other traffic calming projects completed in the
Village including curb extensions and median islands have had an element of landscaping incorporated
into them. By adding features such as trees, bushes and grass, a project can enhance the attractiveness of
a neighborhood. Speed humps, however, do not have an ornamental feature. They are comprised of
asphalt, pavement marking and signs. This "hard" look can detract from the look of a neighborhood. On
a scale of 1 to 10 (1-not, 5-somewhat, 10-extremely), when asked how displeased residents are with the
aesthetics of the speed humps the average score increased from 4.5 from the September 2006 survey to
5.0 from the latest survey in April 2007.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
Based on the speed hump test project performed by the Village over the past year, it is the Engineering
Division's recommendation that speed humps not be considered as an acceptable traffic calming measure
in Mount Prospect. Further, it is recommended that the speed humps on See-Gwun Avenue be removed
at the earliest opportunity.
While the speed humps have proven to reduce vehicular volume and speed, it is our opinion that the
negative aspects of speed humps outweigh the positive aspects. First, the speed humps have caused a
significant number of motorists to look for alternative routes. And in a neighborhood that has a grid
layout, an alternative route can easily be navigated. This adds traffic to adjacent streets and is
accentuated when speed humps are placed on a collector street. In order to respond to these newly
created traffic issues and provide equality in a neighborhood, all streets would then require speed humps.
This would be a tremendous cost to the Village and is not necessarily supported by residents as is evident
from the surveys sent to those on We -Go Trail and Na-Wa-Ta Avenue.
Second, speed humps affect all motorists (not just those driving excessively fast) and require them to
constantly vary their speed over the length of the street. When traversing a speed hump, motorists are
forced to slow down well below the speed limit in an effort to regulate their speed between speed humps.
This design of inconsistent speed increases noise pollution in the neighborhood, adds wear and tear on
vehicles, and frustrates motorists to the point of seeking alternative routes. Other traffic calming
measures that result in more consistent speeds produce these negative issues to a much lesser extent but
still can control excessive speeding.
Third, a series of speed humps on a particular street or throughout the Village will impact response time
of emergency vehicles. This is especially true for speed humps on collector streets where emergency
personnel depend on these streets for access to neighborhoods. Other traffic calming measures such as
horizontal deflectors (i.e. curb extensions, median islands, traffic circles) have less impact on emergency
response time as they do not significantly slow down the vehicles and cause less wear and tear on them as
well.
Finally, aesthetics cannot be underestimated. The evolution of traffic calming has moved toward more
aesthetically pleasing projects. Incorporating trees, bushes and other landscaping into a project not only
enhances the look of a neighborhood but can affect driver behavior. As an example, trees along a median
island interrupt the line of sight for motorists causing them to use caution as they approach and pass by.
Speed humps along with their associated signs, on the other hand, are much more pronounced in a
neighborhood and do not blend in with its surroundings. They provide a more urban look rather than
complementing the adjacent parkways.
Page 10 of 11
See -Gwen Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
NEXT STEPS
Speed humps were installed on See-Gwun Avenue in response to a petition to address the perceived
vehicular volume and speeding concerns. Should they be removed, questions will arise as to what other
alternative solutions can be considered not only for See-Gwun Avenue but for other streets that
experience similar traffic issues. Below are some ideas for the direction of traffic calming in our
neighborhoods.
In April 2005, a document titled the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) was drafted by the
Engineering Division. A copy is attached. The document covers goals, policy statements, a detailed
process and acceptable traffic calming measures. One of the most important aspects of the program is the
review process. It establishes minimum criteria that are to be met for a street to be eligible for traffic
calming measures. It provides a two -tiered approach that requires less intrusive education, enforcement
and engineering measures before considering traffic calming measures. And it requires a collaborative
effort of many stakeholders including residents, businesses, Police, Fire, Public Works and Engineering.
Working together allows everyone to have a say and shape the project before any final decisions are
made. Discussion of the NTCP has been set aside in order to concentrate on implementing the
Neighborhood Traffic Study that involves reviewing all intersections for proper traffic control and all
streets for proper speed limits. Now that several neighborhoods have been completed or are under review
as part of this study, now may be an opportune time to revisit the NTCP.
As part of a discussion with the Village Board of Trustees and Safety Commission, it would be beneficial
to talk about the different aspects of the program as mentioned above including acceptable traffic calming
measures. The discussion would include measures previously constructed in Mount Prospect as well as
other potential measures. Some of these other measures include traffic circles, midblock deflector
islands, chicanes and raised crosswalks. The discussion would also include considering different
acceptable measures for collector streets versus local streets. While some measures such as speed humps
and raised crosswalks maybe prohibited on collector streets, the Village Board of Trustees may consider
them an acceptable solution for local streets.
With respect to See-Gwun Avenue, a traffic calming measure that redistributes 50% of the traffic from a
collector street onto nearby local streets is not beneficial to the neighborhood. A collector street's
function is to provide mobility within a neighborhood. And when that mobility is impeded to the point of
inconveniencing motorists, alternate routes will be sought placing an undesirable burden on other streets.
The Engineering Division's suggestion would be to have a unified resident group clearly articulate the
concerns to the Village. The concerns would then be discussed along with the traffic data collected prior
to the speed humps. A set of agreed upon goals would be created and discussion would begin as to how
best to achieve them following the guidelines of the NTCP. This may include less intrusive measures
such as an education and enforcement campaign, signs and/or pavement markings. It may also include
traffic calming measures that can be supported by all stakeholders and would not be expected to have an
adverse affect on the neighborhood. And it may include a more neighborhood -wide analysis such as the
feasibility and pros/cons of constructing an additional bridge(s) over Weller Creek to better serve the
neighborhood while alleviating some burden from See-Gwun Avenue.
C O N C L U S I O N
The Engineering Division does not support speed humps as an acceptable traffic calming measure in
Mount Prospect, especially on collector streets. The dramatic shift in vehicular volume to adjacent
streets, significant reduction in speed required to traverse them, affect on emergency response time, and
aesthetics are all factors in this decision. We support traffic calming in general but recommend that a
detailed process be followed so that projects are implemented only on those streets that have a defined
Page 11 of 11
See -Gwen Avenue Speed Hump Project
August 16, 2007
problem, only after less intrusive measures have been exhausted, and is supported by the stakeholders.
To that end, it is recommended that further discussion take place with the Village Board of Trustees and
Safety Commission on the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Such a meeting will assist the
Engineering Division in understanding the direction of traffic calming in Mount Prospect. From the
discussion, resumed dialogue with a See-Gwun Avenue resident group could take place to strategize next
steps for the street and possibly the neighborhood.
At your direction, the Engineering Staff will make ourselves available to discuss the speed hump project
in further detail with the Village Board of Trustees, Safety Commission and public.
Matthew P. Lawrie
Appendix
c: Police Chief John Dahlberg
Fire Chief Michael Figolah
Director of Public Works Glen Andler
Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul Bures
Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker
h:\engineering\traffic\calming\seegwun\final—report.doc
From:
Jakupovic, Kristina
To:
Dorsey, Sean
Cc:
Lawrie, Matt; Foresman, Luke; Leib, Jason
Subject:
Unwarranted Stop Signs
Date:
Friday, December 5, 2025 10:11:15 AM
Attachments:
ima_eq 002.pna
FYI
KRISTINA JAKUPOVIC
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERINTENDENT I MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1700 WEST CENTRAL ROAD I MOUNT PROSPECT, IL 60056
847.870.56401 KIAKUPOVICC,MOUNTPRO.SPEC.T O.R.G.
Together Everyone Achieves More
From: Kerensky, Jeff <jeffk@irmarisk.org>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 9:46 AM
To: Jakupovic, Kristina <KJakupovic@mountprospect.org>; Garvey, Susan <susang@irmarisk.org>;
Giannetti, Frankie <frankieg@irmarisk.org>
Cc: Swahlstedt, Jennifer <jennifers@irmarisk.org>
Subject: RE: Unwarranted Stop Signs
Hi Kristina,
The mere placement of an unwarranted stop sign does not create liability for the Village.
Exposure to liability arises if there is an injury or damage that can be attributed to the
placement of the unwarranted sign, or the sign is installed incorrectly or negligently and
causes injury or damage. Having said that, the Village does have protections under the
Illinois Tort Immunity Act for liability caused by their negligent acts. The Illinois Tort
Immunity Act provides for an absolute immunity for not installing a traffic sign; however,
the Act does not include the same immunity for installing an unwarranted sign. Another
provision of the Tort Immunity Act is applicable. Under the Tort Immunity Act the Village
has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe
condition for by people who are using the property. However, if the Village has notice of
a condition that is not reasonably safe and does not correct it and someone is injured,
this immunity would not apply.
An unwarranted stop sign is a stop sign that has not been installed according to a traffic
engineering study and the guidelines of the Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) which adopts the national MUTCD. The Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS
5/11-301) requires local authorities to place and maintain their traffic control devices in
conformance with MUTCD. Thus, when a municipality decides, for reasons of safety or
economy, to provide a traffic control device, they must do so in compliance with the
MUTCD. The MUTCD provides that the placement of signs should be used only when
justified by engineering judgment or studies. It is our understanding that the Village has
an engineering study that does not recommend the placement of the requested stop
signs.
This then raises the concern of whether the failure to follow the requirements of the
MUTCD requirements and install unwarranted stop signs not recommended by the
engineering study creates a condition that is unreasonably safe. And, if the Village have
knowledge of that condition. The MUTCD requirement that placement of stop/traffic
signs be justified by engineering studies is necessarily based in safety concerns.
Unwarranted stop signs can create a false sense of security, lead to increased
speeding between signs creating a higher accident potential. Therefore, it can be
asserted that the Village's knowing failure to comply with the MUTCD requirements by
installing an unwarranted sign contrary to the engineering study creates a condition that
is not reasonably safe. As a result, the protections afforded by the Tort Immunity Act
would not apply, exposing the Village to liability for any resulting loss or damage.
Othe municipalities, both IRMA members and non-members, include statements on
their website about the placement of unwarranted stop signs. See the following
examples:
0113 S
„L,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,iii„ f L ,. resto.coiir lira ii in t l iii t it ,.f iii f -- ii ii iii ,. t t,
ana _.P
.............................. ,,L,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,®„
t. I. : . north it 1. a 114 /,1,ir . f i,ii !.a ii ,.t
Based on all of the above, IRMA encourages the Village to ensure compliance with the
MUTCD requirements. Adhering to these standards aligns with best practices for traffic
control and reduces potential liability exposure. The Village could consider other
alternatives such as sign which says "No Through Traffic (Mon -Friday 7-1 Oam, 4-6pm)"
or "Local Traffic Only." The Village might also consider temporarily installing a visible
speed camera which displays the vehicle's speed.
Please let us know if you would like to discuss this further. (Susan is out of the office
today, but Jeff is available if you would like to discuss this today.)
Susan Garvey
Deputy Executive Director
and
Jeff Kerensky
Director of Legal Services
(708) 236-6361
IRMA (Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency)
This email, including attachments, contains information that is confidential, and it may be protected by the attorney/client
privilege and/or other privileges and/or is exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This email, including attachments,
constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipients. If you are not an intended
recipient, please delete the email, including attachments, and notify the sender by mail, email or by telephone. The
unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this email, including attachments, is prohibited and may be
unlawful.
Date
Description
Delivery
Number
Delivered
Responses
Number
Percent
11/20/2024
Initial Traffic Survey
Mail
134
27
20%
2/18/2025
Preliminary Plan Feedback
Mail
147
24
16%
5/12/2025
Temporary Traffic Calming Measures
Mail
147
36
24%
8/1/2025
Balloting
Mail
147
70
48%
Invitation to Transportation Safety
Commission - Included with Balloting
Letter
7
5%
11/17/2025
Village Board Invitation
Hand
Deliver
147
3
2%
Hatlen Heights Formal Outreach Summary
Percentages based on number of responses, not surveys sent out
Speed Hump Suggested
Stop Signs Suggested
Street Closures Suggested
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1
4%
4
15%
3
11%
3
13%
6
25%
6
25%
6
17%
6
17%
3
8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Notes
More responses indicated an issue with drivers ignoring stop signs (5) than
requesting additional stop signs (4)
Mailing expanded to include Meier Road, includes March TSC Discussion
Residents did not like the traffic calming trial and some suggested other
alternatives
7 residents attended the TSC meeting, most were against the proposal with one
indicating a traffic calming project is not needed. Most wanted something done
and suggested additional stop signs and police.
3 residents spoke at meeting, 2 against proposal and 1 general comment
Speed Hump Survey
July 2025
3. If you have speed
What
8. Do you have specific
requirements for
1. Does your
community install
2. If not, did you
humps and you
stopped installing
them, are you
removing the
4. What is the reason
for removing them and
5. If a speed hump is
removed, are other
measures installed
6. How many
7. criteria do you
use for placement of
speed humps — speed
study, traffic volume,
location of speed
humps — distance from
intersections, distance
from driveways,
to reduce speed? If
so, what?
Municipality
permanent speed
humps?
ever install speed
humps?
existing humps you
have?
is there a process for
their removal?
speed humps do
you have?
street width, proximity
to schools, etc.?
minimum length of
block required, etc.
Arlington -.
Barrington.
.
• _
We don't_ speed
humps, but we have
-. roaddiets the
applicable.
Not applicable.
past.
Not applicable.
typicallyNot
Humps extend
- full widthof the street
with height.•_ _.
the drain _ toallow
unimpeded . - travel.
-. Streets include:
• Arterial streets
• Collector streets•
Truck routes
Streets adjacent to
Hospita
• CTA/PACE Bus Routes
• Snow Ro
• Dead end blocks of local
residential streets
Emergency Response
Routes as designated by
the Fire
Our Police
Depa-
Speed Hump Survey
July 2025
3. If you have speed
What
8. Do you have specific
requirements for
Municipality
1. Does your
community install
permanent speed
2. If not, did you
ever install speed
humps and you
stopped installing
them, are you
removing the
existing humps you
4. What is the reason
for removing them and
is there a process for
5. If a speed hump is
removed, are other
measures installed
6. How many
speed humps do
7. criteria do you
use for placement of
speed humps — speed
study, traffic volume,
street width, proximity
location of speed
humps — distance from
intersections, distance
from driveways,
minimum length of
to reduce speed? If
humps?
humps?
have?
their removal?
so, what?
Speed board - rotated
you have?
to schools, etc.?
block required, etc.
refuge islands where
Once as a pilot
The pilot project was
applicable or medians
project 10-15 years
removed within a year
Noise, impacts for
or bump outs to
ago.
of installation.
emergency vehicles.
narrow traffic lanes.
Highland Park
We have- -
approved based on
locationys
.Police and
opinion.Public Works
We are • creating.
Traffic- Policy
help develop .
procedure for these
_ •
_
requests.
Lake Forest
.but - are
currently •
- possibility
installing
humps/bumps
• - areas
. the
Lake Zurich
community.
We have one
curre•
Fourthon Ave..
--t) for
pedestrian crossing
Speed Hump Survey
July 2025
The Village trialed
speed bumps on a
street that regularly
received speed
We do not install
complaints. The speed
speedbumps anymore,
bumps were effective in
but we have a traffic
reducing speeds on that
calming plan for
street, but they diverted
Yes, when the speed
installing other traffic
traffic to other
bumps were removed,
calming measures. It
neighborhood streets.
they were replaced
can be found at this link:
Ultimately, the residents
with textured
on the street
pavement (bricks) and
https://www.mountprosp
complained about
speed feedback signs.
ect.org/departments/pub
having to drive over the
This resulted in a
lic-
speed bumps everyday
similar traffic calming
works/engineering/traffic
Mount Prospect
No.
Yes.
Yes.
and they were removed.
effect.
0
/traffic -calming
None.
We have never had
speed humps in public
No speed humps in public
Northbrook
No.
No.
roadways.
N/A.
N/A.
0
N/A.
roadways.
Northfield
No.
No.
DNA.
DNA.
DNA.
0
DNA.
DNA.
Palatine
No.
No.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
0
N/A.
N/A.
Prospect Heights
No.
No.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
Not that I am aware
Schaumburg
No.
of.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
None.
N/A.
N/A.
Skokie
No.
No.
Streamwood
No.
No.
Vernon Hills
No.
No.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
Staff is trying to get
Yes we have 3
away from speed
Board approval now.
temporary installed
humps as a traffic
Asked the police dept to
though out town. Put
calming measure but
create set of criteria
in the spring
the community is quite
based on the growing list
West Dundee
I None to date.
removed in the fall.
isupportive of them.
13
lof requested locations.
Speed Hump Survey July 2025
Average D.. . ........aily Traffic History
............
100 Block of Audrey Lane
1700
1500
LU Cr.
O �
— Minimum rorirarfic Calming-i000
LU
900
goo _. ..
eoo
1994 199E %""' '%/ 2023 2024
Vehicle Speed History
100 Block of Audrey Lane
/-///////�// ..... .....
34
32 Minimum for Traffic Calmi...........
ng-32
30
i28 winimum roriraflic Calming-za
WW
W
26
LU
24
ZZ Speed Feedback
Data Unavailable Signs in Place
zo
1994 1996 200] 2009 2023 2024
YEAR
CIVMJ _MJiN 30
CIVM:1 W` :UN30
BMP'paeo8 aBell!n - leuH - (IV
3Ne-1 A3�:jane jo
NOlivnNIlNOO 2:J0J 3NO 30Vd 33S
C� ao O Cy Gvo2:] J 3131A
�
2JOJ 1H,
BMP'paeo8 aBell!n - leuH - (IV
mg/g/j,
EF/1"
f
f
off
All,
irs
'r
p
w
OF
V/D
1/0
R
M/11"
al
iiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ///0 "Mi/FF
rMP
x/ro/
IN
ff JAI,
CD
901
2"
A/
A
maw j,
NO
IF
My
Afil
w ig
owl'
011
/i al
, HIM,).
ME
co
lofiwl/
A
7
1/10
vo
W,
VEEP
jo "De"
M, fal,
M/
R_
M
(0
J11,
IV) "Oil
Mw
. .......... IN 01,0,
rmpyp
411
ObVi
t
IN/5"
C,e)
�MU /N1
S/1
CY)
I WIN
OWN
114
Al
T HIR(Iffel(al m
#
w will
a
. . . . . . . . . . . . I
1111111111-11 . . . . . .
ME/ M,
CIVM:1 W�:UN30
GVM:J W�:UN30
z
0
C-0
0
z
U_
U_
Z
(D
cn
0
z
(D
Z
r
(D
C/)
x LU
w �:
F)N\P'u011ePu9wOOO9H JJelS - CIVO slq5l9H uE)IIeH\suoildo pelsenb
C
L
L
L
C
L
L
C
G,
3Ne-1 A3�:jane jo
NOlivnNIlNOO 2:J0J 3NO 30Vd 33S
Omp W Gvo0:]J3131A
0L C� �
CL 00 2JOJ 1H,
Bn\p'uoi;epu9ua0009H }}elg - ado slg5l9H uaIIeH\suoildo pelsenb
4',
r iolvii
/K P VERNON/
ROUNIKEW
��; 121111,
r
"All
"Will, . . .. . ... .
MOX
cle)
w g1g,
FK
a
w
Op
Mly /i MA
' ird
Ljol
"RIF
oo
or
l/F
ar, "011
A,
Aw
A
"ell
"w/0
ME
OF
MISSION'
J,
W,
A
W ,
A//
l/K
MA/All,
f
w®r
mas
ip "IR
IF
Afil
"SOW"
ft lai JA1111111,01 11,
// /, ))��illillillilmillillilli111=1111RIIIIII (MME
1/2211
MOW
co
AM
low,
ON
0"
J�
Aml
7
if
M
M/
smam
'Its, I
(D
4 AV
ai� x
do
Jo
. .. . ..........
Ap,
A
1/010
NONNI', I
mm w
No
C,e)
0/
C-o Is,
Pill
All
o
/J. j
ON "k
A
q
Offim
J"
/A
i Nil,
CN
/�//////// . . . ...... ////////,Im Im
IM/I Al
IM
(1VM:J W�:UN30
GVM:J W�:UN30
z
0
z
U-
U-
Z
0
z
z
F--- (D
CO
x LU
w �:
Omp, � uoildo SA - OVO sILIG19H u9lleH\suoildo pajsanba�j pjeo-a
3Ne-1 A3�:jane jo
NOlivnNIlNOO 2:J0J 3NO 30Vd 33S
Omp W Gvo0:]J3131A
� 0' �
0- 00 2JOJ 1H,
Omp,� uoildp 8n- OVO sI4619H ualleH\suoildo pajsanba�j paeo8
m
m
00
r
�l.
LO ,,
no/m...
A
I
all JIM
IF
4IMP"
W
W
16
J,
Or #
1
1 ,
ON 4
/g/725577,7777,
�f.
f�
,
r
,ffff , ,
/, ,
CIVM:1 W` :UN30
GVM:J W` :UN30
Gmp'Z uoildo SA - OVO sI4619H u9lleH\suoildo pajsanba� pjeo-a
"A
I vw-w,
M
Ilk'
(714
L
SYR/
"w" AwFf
'11114wo 01
1/0 �,//,
NMI
1 /or, -
CL,
j"),
A F,
A/I
I
I/W
AN
E//E
41,
API F/P
IIF
F
M/,
AMR
/m/e/i, mi/
1%
IF
M
0 F AM SO!/
MR/Mr/O
If
Mr/I
?/f
M
OPPI/Sm/i
411
KIP
LU gg,
LU A/e/111
L A
111IF/W
VIEF
m
F=qqmwa,
Cn
................
OF
AM / lee �
"wom
j/
IQ
IN
R111
0 All,
mill
LLI
IBM
Cnmr
NOR
At M/N
A
gwo,
IMF',
vxl�
A
ir
LU
-J
Ami`
A
Cl"i
S
Ad
i/p/
�'p
/ Idogrg
... ...... memp"01,1111111"
/P
FBI
"IF
Rlf wl,
ui
I dal
f
... Iffiolllll
ui
n 3NV� A3�:jonv jo
NOiivnNIiNOO �:JOJ 3NO 39Vd 33S
Omp,Z uoildo SA - OVO sILIG19H u9lleH\suoildo pajsanba�j pjeo-a
a_ d
A
W,
M,
All
C)
000001-
LU
ui
Op
10
LLI
elm
a_ cn
A
ry
11/1-1 ft
alm
fill
We
A
co
a_
ui Sy
M
AAAMP,
LU
W
ui
ME
ui,
U)
/ iopopopl
ui
W
7 U)
ggg—
ow/0'
Fill
AA
All
S
"Is
�jjjjjj jjj6
,ur
p// 1 0/0
R
M/
a/M
'2Z
"SOW"
i
mIgg
INA411001
1111 Ilk
IS,
///amo q
S,
ik"/
'Alf
LU
jj m Pal
LU
IF
UJ
T-
LU
ui
j I,
ui
A
Its,
"J(D can
Al
AM "Jul
E", U*)
?/5",
t
AF/
A
IMIL
SO
All"
LL
LL
J,
C,e)
"'VIA
WM"
ROOM,
W",
A
All. . .... .
LLJ
Lu F---
"0
Y, 0101"U/1'//
IIYWVII�
"MORI/
sw®rd
PEI F
#
IN I
MINE/
", . .. .... .... -
CIVM:1 W�:UN30 GVM:1 W�:UN30
Omp,C uoildo SA - OVO sILIG19H u9lleH\suoildo pajsanba�j pjeo-a
N
C)
CY)
/ol
"" "If
omrqqqlllw�� p
A
VMS,/,
al
T-
All/
ggm
Of If",
f 'Lo
M
LU 111'
LU
n
U)
- - -----------
PIP%
pal,
11111211
all
'IV
Poll,
r
p/,
-momma -
a/':
"g/a
��,A fl, , —
AAAA
I
l/w
o
fOlf, 9//,X/,7n
"Ofint"ll,
v
AMR
L w
MOVE VF)
ON!" a
Ad
NO
LU
0/
LU
15 1/
ANNE LU
M
Mb
To
if
...........
can
"OrFIFF Will
A6,/l
A/d/l/10,
moo
C-0 MIN I/
11110111
UNIX,
C)
1/0111prom/11
CL
A/6 LU
Mel
cn
'A
A
LO AMR` a
(01
-`0 Al
�6,
M
F/ I
Wl
m rm
A
3
Ali Al
ddsk
If
Uo�
"Im/k/m/
mow
3 NV� A3�:jonv jo
NOiivnNIiNOO �:JOJ 3NO 3 9Vd 3 D S
Omp,C uoildo SA - OVO sILIG19H u9lleH\suoildo pajsanba�j pjeo-a
AN),
r
1/0
M
co
iu
m
A
LU
LU
N -
ry
I M�,P
A"I
ry
LU
U)
0
n
®R'
F
Off,
MA/A.,
'owl'
co
r
j,
'120ma/m
All—
(0 Its
g U
QD
:5
�,mw/
LL
LL
<
w
EfORM111100111m,
Adm
CY)
Aft,
4",
'IN ff'f ff om , I I I/Im/ I'
0 m
`el/m
n�
.............
#
jj
CIVM:1 W�:UN30 GVM:1 W�:UN30
Omp'ejue(] 99jsnA_L OA - CIVO sIq5I9H uE)IIeH\suoildo pelsenb
Oz
0�O
0-U
3 N`d A3�:j a ne j o
NOiivnNIlNOO 2:J0J 3NO 39Vd 33S
6mp,eluea eelsnal 8n - ado slg5l9H uaIIeH\suoildo pelsenb