Citizens Traffic Committee

Post Meeting Agenda Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee Meeting Tuesday, July 22, 2025, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Commission Chambers Room 121 203 South Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Anyone planning to attend the meeting who has need of special assistance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is asked to contact the city clerk’s office at 248-246-3050 at least two (2) business days prior to the meeting. Pages 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Preamble 2 3. Approval of Minutes 3 4. Public Comment for Items not on the Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business a. Request to Install Speed Humps on Linwood Avenue 8 b. Request to review N. Main Street Crosswalks at E. University Avenue 17 and Pingree Boulevard 7. Information Only Items a. Results of Previous Traffic Committee Recommendations 24 8. Adjournment  Engineering Division 203 South Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 www.romi.gov Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee Preamble "The Traffic Committee consists of Royal Oak property owners appointed by the City Commission. We are volunteers and are not paid or elected. What we decide tonight is merely a recommendation to the City Commission. If you do not agree with the findings or decisions of this committee, you may go before the City Commission and petition and/or discuss your issue with them. At this meeting you will be given an opportunity to speak during your item on the agenda. However, at the City Commission meeting, you must be recognized during "public comment" on their agenda, not when the Traffic Committee resolutions are being voted upon. Otherwise, you will not be able to voice your concerns. It is important to understand that professionals make preliminary recommendations to the Traffic Committee. They consist of civil and traffic engineers, outside consultants and public safety officials. You may have been informed that these professionals have denied your request or petition. This denial does not mean that this committee will vote that way; however, we are committed to discussing the issues at hand in a pragmatic and sensible manner. Our ultimate recommendation to the City Commission will be one that benefits our citizens and community as a whole." Page 2 of 25  Minutes Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee Meeting May 27, 2025, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Commission Chambers Room 121 203 South Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Present: Carl Laubach Dan Godek Joe Labataille Sean Dunlop Thomas Allen Michael Tash Absent: Clyde Esbri Staff Present: Holly Donoghue Jennifer Caudill _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Preamble 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by: Thomas Allen Seconded by: Carl Laubach Motion to approve the previous meeting minutes. Ayes (6): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, Sean Dunlop, Thomas Allen, and Michael Tash Motion Adopted (6 to 0) 4. Public Comment for Items not on the Agenda Chairperson Godek asked for any public comment for items not on the agenda. No one came forward. 5. Unfinished Business 1 Page 3 of 25 6. New Business 6.a Request to Change Signage on Marywood Drive Chairperson Godek opened public comment on this issue. Engineering staff read aloud the statement from the petitioner who could not attend the meeting. No one else spoke. Moved by: Thomas Allen Seconded by: Sean Dunlop Motion to approve the staff recommendation to make the following signage changes on Marywood Drive between Upton Avenue and Catalpa Drive:  Remove the existing “No Parking 8am-4pm Except Sat, Sun & Holidays” signs on both sides of the street (8 signs);  Install “No Parking No Standing 7:30am-9:30am, 2:30pm-3:30pm School Days Only” on the west side of the street (4 signs);  Install “No Student Drop-Off or Pick-Up" on the east and west side of the street (8 signs). Ayes (6): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, Sean Dunlop, Thomas Allen, and Michael Tash Motion Adopted (6 to 0) 6.b 11 Mile Road Lane Conversion Plan Chairperson Godek opened public comment on this issue. Denise Allard of 101 Curry spoke against the lane conversion plan. She stated she already has difficulty turning onto 11 Mile Road. She doesn't use Coolidge Highway anymore since the road diet was installed. She had concerns about the traffic near Taco Bell that backs up into the street. Resident Trish Oliver spoke against the lane conversion plan. She was concerned about delays due to the bus route, the funding being uncertain due to federal pauses or changes, and found no rationale for the pedestrian crossing islands. Dale Jordan of 1014 Maxwell spoke about optimizing the corridor for people. He wanted to know what Berkley and Madison Heights have planned for 11 Mile Road so that changes can be consistent along the corridor. He noted that the future cost savings associated with the various options would be helpful. Peggy Pineau of 1003 W 11 Mile spoke against the lane conversion plan. She cited incorrect data on the report from F&V. There is no change in 2 Page 4 of 25 Level of Service if the road diet is installed, so extra money should not be spent for a lane conversion. Sharon Hamill of 1002 Longfellow spoke against the lane conversion plan. Does not want bike lanes on 11 Mile Road that no one will use. Debris builds up in the bike lanes. Concerned about tree plantings obstructing views/site lines. Wants additional crosswalks and striping installed. Jim Razor of 502 W. Lincoln spoke in favor of the lane conversion and traffic calming. As an attorney dealing with accident victims he wants to see safety improvements, and the road diet will reduce vehicle crashes. He asked for more pedestrian crossings so residents and visitors can easily cross to the north/south side of 11 Mile. He suggested instead of planting grass to please focus on greenery and trees. Grass will die from winter road salt. He spoke in favor of adding on-street parking to the Main- Campbell section of the corridor on the north side of the road. Existing businesses need it, and it will assist with future redevelopment. He would be in favor of a bi-directional bike lane, similar to what was installed on Woodward in Ferndale. He requested additional temporary pedestrian crossings be installed since the roadwork is still two years out. He provided a packet of information showing some of the new curbs and sidewalk that was installed in 2013. Sharlan Douglas spoke about additional crossings, stating that near Philips/Curry would be a great location. She was concerned about road salt damage to lawn areas if installed, and how businesses will maintain these small lawn areas since they don't have a lawnmower and it would not be cost effective to hire a cutting service for such a small area, puts burden on businesses. She thought the city could consider creating a Business Improvement District to help with costs. Janice Wagman spoke with concerns about police mounting the curb islands. There has been no reduction in accidents on S. Campbell or Rochester where road diets were installed. What if in the future, the road will need to be widened again due to increased traffic? Tom Marsh of 1118 N Vermont spoke in favor of the road diet. He asked what the long term savings would be if the road diet is implemented. He is a bus driver and spoke about the difficulty getting through the corridor currently. In favor of fewer accidents. Marty Cardamone of 410 N Rembrandt spoke in favor of the road diet. He liked the ideas of adding on-street parking and additional crosswalks. He hopes it will spur redevelopment. As a cyclist, he is not in favor of bike lanes on 11 Mile Road, and also does not want to see grass that will just die or not be maintained by property owners. 3 Page 5 of 25  Ali of 2419 E 11 Mile spoke against the lane conversion plan. He spoke about whenever there is an accident on the freeway, it will cause excessive congestion on 11 Mile if the road diet is implemented. Resident Phyllis spoke about concerns with cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods. She said it is too soon to install so many road diets when we are still in a car-centric region/culture. Christopher Werner spoke against the lane conversion plan. He spoke about the difficulty of turning onto Main Street now that the road diet is installed, no gaps in traffic. He is a cyclist but uses rail trails not roadways. He also had concerns about the Taco Bell traffic that backs up onto 11 Mile Road. Chairperson Godek and the committee discussed the various options for the lane conversion. All the members were against bike lanes. All were in favor of additional pedestrian crossings and improving sight distance and safety along the corridor. Members discussed where adding on-street parking could be beneficial and moving curbs inward. Moved by: Carl Laubach Seconded by: Michael Tash Motion to approve the staff recommendation to design the future of 11 Mile Road projects to include the following improvements:  Maintain existing lane configurations between Woodward Avenue and Baker Street, and also between Minerva Avenue at Stephenson Highway;  between Baker Street and Minerva Avenue reconstruct curbs inward to provide one lane in each direction with a center left turn lane, and install grass between the new curbing and sidewalk;  provide pedestrian crossing islands where feasible, tentatively planned near the intersections of Laurel Avenue, Potter Avenue and Dorchester Avenue;  Maximize tree installation where feasible;  Incorporate green infrastructure where warranted. Ayes (4): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, and Michael Tash Nays (2): Sean Dunlop, and Thomas Allen Motion Adopted (4 to 2) 7. Information Only Items 7.a Results of Previous Traffic Committee Recommendations 4 Page 6 of 25  The City Engineer informed the committee of the city commission resolutions from the January meeting. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. Moved by: Sean Dunlop Seconded by: Carl Laubach Motion to adjourn. Ayes (6): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, Sean Dunlop, Thomas Allen, and Michael Tash Motion Adopted (6 to 0) 5 Page 7 of 25  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee AGENDA ITEM Title Request to Install Speed Humps on Linwood Avenue SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PRESENTER Holly Donoghue, P.E. MEETING DATE July 22, 2025 Requestor Concern: A request was received from Holly Fockler-LaBute of 1520 Linwood Avenue to install speed humps on Linwood Avenue between Woodward Avenue and 12 Mile Road due to speeding concerns. Staff Analysis: The Staff Traffic Committee has reviewed this request and determined that: 1. Linwood Avenue is a 37-foot wide local road consisting of concrete pavement with integral curb. 2. The road is approximately 0.2-miles long between Woodward Avenue and 12 Mile Road and there are stop signs at either end. Shrine Catholic Grade School takes up most of the west side of the street. The east side of Linwood Avenue is a permit parking zone for residents and parking is allowed on the west side of the street. 3. The three-year (2022-2024) accident report shows no accidents occurred along the corridor. 4. The city requested traffic measurements from the TIA for speed and traffic volume, which were measured in June 2025: 85th Percentile Speed Vehicles Per Linwood Avenue (mph) Day Woodward to 12 Mile 28 554 5. Staff prepared a petition and exhibit showing the proposed speed humps on June 11, 2025 for this block. The signed petition was returned on June 25, 2025 and is provided in the attachments, along with a sketch of the proposed speed hump locations. Page 8 of 25  6. A summary of the speed hump criteria follows: Speed Hump Criteria Linwood Avenue Evaluation The road must be classified as a Local Road under the National Functional Classification of Roads (NFC). The street must be paved already. The street must not be on a primary fire route, a high priority street for snow plowing, or primary school bus or transit route. The Police Department, Fire Department and Department of Public Services must not have any operational objections to the installation of speed humps. There must be space to allow for speed humps 300 to 600 feet apart. There must be space to install speed humps outside the influence of property driveways and intersections. The 85th percentile speed as measured by a three-day speed study must be 28 mph or higher. (28 mph) The average daily traffic volume must be at least 300 vehicles per day as measured by a three-day traffic count. (554 vpd) 65% of residents must petition for the installation. (12/18 = 67%) 100% of properties on either side of each hump must be in favor of the petition. (1500, 1508, 1608, 1612, 1621) Speed humps will consist of asphalt or concrete material unless otherwise approved. 7. All the required criteria for speed humps have been met. The speed humps can be constructed next summer as part of the road reconstruction improvement project. 8. Staff will notify the residents of Linwood Avenue that this item will be on the July agenda. Suggested Staff Recommendation: Install two speed humps and speed hump signage and striping on Linwood Avenue between Woodward Avenue and 12 Mile Road as shown in the submitted petition. Estimated cost: $19,000 Page 9 of 25  CI TY MI N ROYA SE AL OF CHIG A L N CI OFFI AL K OA E U N E AV #1621 D R A Notes: W MATCH LINE BELOW D O O 1. New "Speed Hump" signs W would be installed at the SPEED locations shown. HUMP 2. Addresses boxed on the plan are considered to be LINWOOD AVENUE "adjacent to" the speed humps and must be in favor in order for 352' 352 'to be approved. installation 20 3. Speed humps will consist of MPH concrete pavement. Refer to the detail provided. 4. There are no additional parking prohibitions proposed. #1508 #1414 #1418 #1422 #1500 #1512 #1621 1.5 ' 12 ' 12 MILE ROAD SPEED MATCH LINE ABOVE Concrete Speed Hump HUMP 12" Yellow Cold Plastic or Paint Pavement Markings 6' LINWOOD AVENUE 1' Road Centerline 352 ' 1' 20 6' MPH Note: speed hump 1.5 ' height is 3.5 inches above existing pavement PLAN Speed Hump Detail #1520 #1600 #1612 #1704 #1516 #1524 #1604 #1608 #1700 #1708 #2021 REVISIONS DATE DATE: 6.9.25 SCALE: 1"= 20' PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS EXHIBIT FOR PETITION CITY OF ROYAL OAK DWN: SLG N/A LINWOOD AVENUE - SPEED HUMPS 1 1 Page 10 of 25 Page 11 of 25 Page 12 of 25 Page 13 of 25 Page 14 of 25 From: noreply@civicplus.com To: Engineering Division Subject: Online Form Submittal: Traffic Committee Request Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 8:02:25 AM Traffic Committee Request Please complete required fields and submit. Name Holly Lynn Fockler-LaBute Email Address hollylabute@gmail.com Street Address 1520 Linwood Ave Phone Number 7347885506 Location of Concern Linwood Ave. 12mile and Woodward Type of Issue Cut-thru traffic Detailed Description of Linwood Ave is a cut through street for drivers to get to 12 mile Concern off of Woodward. The drivers often drive extremely fast down Linwood. Linwood is not only a residential street with children on it; it is a street with an elementary school. There have been many times where children and other residents have been almost hit by speeding and distracted drivers. Proposed Solution The proposal is that speed humps be placed on Linwood Ave. to slow traffic. Media Upload Field not completed. Important I have the reviewed the Traffic Committee's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding traffic requests and concerns (Section Break) Neighborhood Support Analyzing traffic requests can take a significant amount of staff time, and we require neighborhood support for a particular issue before beginning review. Please provide at least two neighbors' contact information, who are in agreement with your concerns or request. They must be from separate households. They will be notified if this item is brought to the Traffic Committee. Name Neud Kiros Page 15 of 25 Address 1512 Linwood Ave. Email neudkiros@gmail.com Name Alex Cooley Address 1600 Linwood Ave. Email acooley76@gmail.com Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 16 of 25  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee AGENDA ITEM Title Request to review N. Main Street crosswalks at E. University Avenue and Pingree Boulevard SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PRESENTER Holly Donoghue, P.E. MEETING DATE July 22, 2025 Requestor Concern: A request was received from Caitlin Rayburn of 221 N. Main to review the existing unsignalized crosswalks on N. Main Street between 11 Mile and Farnum due to safety concerns for pedestrians. She stated that traffic is often speeding and it can be difficult to see pedestrians at night. Staff Analysis: The Staff Traffic Committee has reviewed this request and determined that: 1. N. Main Street is a 73-foot wide major road consisting of composite pavement with curb and gutter. The speed limit is 25 mph. 2. The road consists of two lanes of traffic in each direction with a center turn lane. There are also parking lanes on each side of the road between 11 Mile and Farnum. There are unsignalized crosswalks across N. Main Street at the following locations in this corridor: a. South side of University Avenue with a pedestrian refuge island b. North side of University Avenue without a pedestrian refuge island c. South side of Pingree Boulevard with a pedestrian refuge island Page 17 of 25  Farnum Ave. Crosswalk with pedestrian refuge island Pingree Blvd. N. Main Street Crosswalk with no pedestrian refuge island E. University Ave. Crosswalk with pedestrian refuge island 11 Mile Road Page 18 of 25 3. The three-year (2022-2024) accident report shows: a. At E University: two accidents. One involving a vehicle running over the pedestrian refuge island and the other involving a vehicle turning south from University and hitting a vehicle driving south on Main. b. At Pingree: nine accidents. Four of these were rear-end accidents, possibly caused by drivers unexpectedly stopping for the crosswalk. The other accidents were not related to the crossing (hitting parked cars, icy conditions, poor turning decisions). 4. MDOT provides guidance for various treatments at uncontrolled crosswalks based on the number of pedestrians as well as traffic volumes. Uncontrolled crosswalks include unsignalized or mid-block intersections where the mainline does not stop. 5. The city requested traffic counts from the TIA for traffic volume which were measured on May 14-17, 2025: Vehicles Total Volume N. Main Street Per Day Per Day At Pingree Southbound 7,094 13,738 At Pingree Northbound 6,644 At University Southbound 7,470 14,100 At University Northbound 6,630 6. The traffic volume on Main Street is high as it is a major road and this corridor is near downtown Royal Oak. The minimum vehicle volume to install crossing treatments is at least 1,500 vehicles per day, which Main Street traffic is far above. 7. The minimum pedestrian volume for an enhanced crossing treatment is the following: a. 20 pedestrians per hour* in any one hour, or b. 18 pedestrians per hour* in any two hours, or c. 15 pedestrians per hour* in any three hours *Young, elderly, and pedestrians with disabilities count two times toward the volume thresholds 8. Pedestrian counts were performed at both intersections on Friday, May 16 from 4 pm-7pm and Saturday, May 17 from 4 pm-7 pm. a. At University (south leg): pedestrian counts well above the threshold, with the largest number in an hour at 39 pedestrians and averaging around 33 pedestrians per hour. b. At University (north leg): pedestrian counts lower than the threshold with the largest count being 13 pedestrians per hour. c. At Pingree: pedestrian counts lower than the threshold with the largest count being 13 pedestrians per hour. Page 19 of 25 9. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) can be used in conjunction with pedestrian crossing signs to alert drivers that a pedestrian may be entering the crosswalk. It is intended to provide emphasis on the crossing signs where drivers may not be expecting pedestrians or where special emphasis is required. It is a pedestrian-activated device. A picture of crosswalk signage with RRFBs is shown below. 10. The University intersection (south leg) qualifies for the RRFBs based on both vehicular and pedestrian volumes. Pingree does not qualify based on pedestrian volumes, however it is near the threshold and staff feels both intersections should receive this enhanced treatment to minimize potential driver confusion. Staff feels that providing the enhanced treatment for both uncontrolled crossings will provide a more cohesive and pedestrian- friendly area north of 11 Mile Road. 11. Due to safety concerns, staff also recommends removing the existing crosswalk on the north side of University with no pedestrian refuge island. Pedestrians are using this crosswalk at far lower numbers than the crosswalk on the south side and without the refuge island, pedestrians have to be concerned with traffic in both directions as well as southbound vehicles turning left onto University in the center turn lane. 12. Staff raised concerns about sight distance at the intersection of Pingree and Main. With parked vehicles so close to Pingree, this can be a safety concern for both drivers and pedestrians. Staff recommends eliminating one parking stall south of Pingree as shown below. Page 20 of 25  13. The capital improvement plan includes $50,000 each fiscal year for miscellaneous traffic safety improvements such as signage and speed humps. The signs can be placed later this year using these funds and the crosswalk on the north side of University can be removed with the concrete patching job in 2026. Suggested Staff Recommendation: To install pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at the crosswalks across N. Main Street on the south side of Pingree Boulevard and the souths side of University Avenue; to remove the crosswalk across N. Main Street on the north side of University Avenue; and to eliminate one parking stall south of Pingree Boulevard on the east side of N. Main Street. Estimated cost: RRFBs: $23,000 Crosswalk removal: $11,000 Total: $34,000 Page 21 of 25 From: noreply@civicplus.com To: Engineering Division Subject: Online Form Submittal: Traffic Committee Request Date: Saturday, May 3, 2025 4:32:49 PM Traffic Committee Request Please complete required fields and submit. Name Caitlin Rayburn Email Address caitlin.rayburn@gmail.com Street Address 221 N Main St Apt 309 Phone Number 2482294113 Location of Concern N. Main Street, north of 11 mile, E/W crosswalks between Billings Place, Cantaritos, Hyatt Place Type of Issue Traffic or pedestrian signal Detailed Description of This location is north of the main central district and traffic is Concern almost always traveling over 25 mph. These crosswalks are frequently used and I have seen many dangerous encounters. The current crosswalk signage does not persuade many drivers to slow down for pedestrians. We have a visually impaired resident in the Billings Place apartments. She moved to Royal Oak for the ease of getting around; however, she has almost been hit before in this crosswalk. It is also very dark at night which makes it difficult for drivers to see the crosswalks. I have seen police watching for speeders on N Main street, but it only temporarily bandaids the speeding. It is only a matter of time before there is an accident in these crosswalks. Proposed Solution Any combination of: stand up yellow sign on road between lanes like central downtown Main St. crosswalks, flashing lights initiated by pedestrian, extra lighting illuminating crosswalk, more reflective features (nighttime), speed bumps, open to other suggestions. Media Upload Field not completed. Important I have the reviewed the Traffic Committee's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding traffic requests and concerns (Section Break) Neighborhood Support Analyzing traffic requests can take a significant amount of staff time, and we require Page 22 of 25 neighborhood support for a particular issue before beginning review. Please provide at least two neighbors' contact information, who are in agreement with your concerns or request. They must be from separate households. They will be notified if this item is brought to the Traffic Committee. Name Michele Baltrusaitis Address 221 N. Main St., Apt. 301 Email michelebalto@gmail.com Name Renee Todd Address 221 N. Main St., Apt. 205 Email reneetodd05@gmail.com Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 23 of 25  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee CITY COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING RECOMMENDATIONS May 2025 Traffic Committee City Commission Resolution Recommendations 6.a. Change signage on Marywood Drive between Upton Avenue and Catalpa Drive: • Remove the existing “No Parking 8am-4pm Except Sat, Sun & Holidays” signs on both sides of the street (8 signs); • Install “No Parking No Approved as recommended Standing 7:30am-9:30am, 2:30pm-3:30pm School Days Only” on the west side of the street (4 signs); • Install “No Student Drop-Off or Pick-Up" on the east and west side of the street (8 signs). 6.b. Future design of 11 Mile Road corridor Approved a hybrid option: to include: • Maintain existing lane configurations • Maintain existing lane between Woodward Avenue and Baker configurations between Street, and also between Minerva Avenue Woodward Avenue and Baker at Stephenson Highway; Street, and also between Minerva Avenue at • Reconstruct curbs inward to provide one Stephenson Highway; lane in each direction with a center left turn lane, and install grass between the • between Baker Street and new curbing and sidewalk for the Minerva Avenue reconstruct remaining road segments between curbs inward to provide one Woodward and Main and also between lane in each direction with a Campbell and Stephenson; center left turn lane, and install grass between the new curbing and sidewalk; CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Page 24 of 25 • provide pedestrian crossing • From Main to Campbell, provide on-street islands where feasible, parallel parking stalls on the north side of tentatively planned near the the road; intersections of Laurel Avenue, • Provide pedestrian crossing islands Potter Avenue and Dorchester where feasible, tentatively planned near Avenue; the intersections of Laurel Avenue, Potter • Maximize tree installation Avenue and Dorchester Avenue; where feasible; • Provide additional crosswalk striping and • Incorporate green signs along corridor at key locations infrastructure where warranted. where pedestrian crossing islands cannot be installed; • Maximize tree installation where feasible; • Incorporate green infrastructure where warranted. • Evaluate a sidewalk connectivity plan, inquire with adjacent cities about their future plans, consider widened sidewalks or shared use paths along 11 Mile and bring report to the city commission within six months Page 25 of 25