Laserfiche WebLink
Better Site Design <br />Table 1.3: Street Width Requirements for Fire Vehicles <br />18' -20" <br />rc!<: >. <br />US Fire Administration (Cochran, 1997) <br />24' (on- street parking) <br />16' (no on- street parking) <br />Baltimore County Fire Department <br />18' minimum <br />Virginia State Fire Marshal <br />24' (no parking) <br />30' (parking on one side) <br />36' (parking on both sides) <br />20' (for fire truck access) <br />Prince Georges County Department of Environmental Resources <br />18' (parking on one side)' <br />26' (parking on both sides) <br />Portland Office of Transportation <br />'Represents typical "fire lane" width, which is the width necessary to accommodate a fire vehicle. <br />'Applicable to grid pattern streets or short cut -de -sacs. <br />ECONOMIC BENEFITS <br />Significant construction cost savings can be achieved by building narrower streets. Construction costs for <br />paving are approximately $15 per square yard. For example, a local jurisdiction currently requires all <br />residential streets with one parking Lane to be a minimum of 28 feet wide. The jurisdiction adopts a new <br />standard: 18 feet wide queuing streets. This new standard would reduce the overall imperviousness <br />associated with a 300 foot road by 35% and construction costs by $5,000. Additional economic benefits <br />include reduced clearing and grading, infrastructure, and stormwater management costs. Long -term <br />pavement maintenance costs would also be reduced. <br />CASE STUDY: LONGMONT, COLORADO <br />(Source: Swift, et al, 1998) <br />The City of Longmont, Colorado is experiencing rapid growth. The quality and type of new development <br />has become an important issue as more development and non - conventional site designs are proposed. Part <br />of this discussion is acceptable residential street design. <br />Over 20,000 police reports were examined to determine the relationship between street design and safety. <br />The study focused specifically on residential streets with maximum ADTs of 2,500. Accidents attributable <br />to poor road conditions or substance abuse were excluded from the study. As shown in Figure 1.1, the <br />study results suggested that narrow residential streets are safer than wide streets. Specifically, streets <br />between 22 to 30 feet in width were found to be the safest. The study further indicated that curvilinear <br />streets were safer than straight streets. In general, the Longmont study suggests that narrow, curved <br />streets can safely be used in residential developments. <br />- 32 - <br />