Truckee California, Atlanta Georgia and Winnipeg, Canada are a few of the latest cities to deploy radar speed signs in a big way. The growing acceptance of these traffic-calming displays is particularly noteworthy given the correlating decline in the popularity of speedbumps and radar speed cameras.

radar speed signs' increasing popularity

According to Sam Katz, the mayor of Winnipeg, their recent installation of seven solar-powered radar speed signs is “anything but a cash grab,” – one of the major concerns of Winnepeg citizens opposed to speed cameras. Studies show that radar speed signs are highly effective at slowing cars without being obtrusive or financially threatening (spelled t.i.c.k.e.t). Katz made it clear that none of the new displays will take pictures or be used to issue tickets.

In California, the city of Truckee took advantage of funding provided by the federal Safe Routes to School program to buy and install six flashing crosswalk signs and radar speed signs. The displays are being permanently mounted along a busy school route and are intended to be operational in time for the 2010-11 school year.

And then last year, residents of Wildwood, Georgia, a city just North of downtown Atlanta, used the data collected by a radar speed sign to convince local police that there was a major speeding problem around their local school zones. Surprising to many who analyzed follow up data, that the majority of speeders were local residents. This, however, coincides with findings of numerous traffic-calming studies and highlights one of the key reasons radar speed signs work so well. Most speeders are just distracted drivers. Radar speed signs are an unobtrusive way to redirect driver attention to their current driving conditions. And that doesn’t require photos or ticketing.

I CAME ACROSS A study by Safe Kids USA that looked at distracted drivers in school zones. While it’s no surprise that distracted drivers are more likely to cause or be involved in an accident, some of the specifics noted in the report were surprising to me. For instance:

Fact. Drivers using a phone are as likely to get in an accident as drunk drivers ( .08 blood alcohol content). 

Fact. Drivers dialing a phone are six times more likely to be involved in an accident. 

Fact. Drivers texting on their phones are 23 times more likely to be involved in an accident. 

Fact. Drivers talking on a phone are four times more likely to be in an accident.      

Fact. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that in 2003, cell phone use was a factor in 636,000 crashes, 12,000 major injuries and 2,600 deaths.

But this post isn’t about bashing cell phone use. It’s about the impact of driving distractions in general and what we can do about it to increase pedestrian safety.

In the Safe Kids study, trained observers were posted in school zones located in 15 states throughout the U.S. They observed each car that passed through the school zone, making note of the drivers’ sex, the type of cars they were driving and any marked evidence of driver distractions. Of the 41,426 total drivers observed, about 7,000 of them (1 in 6) were distracted by something – eating, reaching in back, talking on a phone etc.

Specific findings include:

• Cell phone use was the number one leading distracter 
• Men and woman drivers were abut equally distracted.
• Distracted drivers appeared more frequently in school zones without flashing lights.
• Drivers of SUVs, pickup trucks and other large vehicles tended to be distracted more than car drivers.
• Drivers not using their seat belts were 35% more likely to be distracted than those who did use seat belts.

Why does any of this matter? I suggest two reasons:

1. Distractions lead to more accidents as well as a higher severity of accidents when crashes do occur.       

2. Traffic calming methods that interrupt diver distractions during critical times (such as while passing through school zones( are particularly important in reducing accidents.

As the Safe Kids report points out, a distraction that takes the driver’s mind off of his or her driving environment can have a huge impact on accident avoidance. By the time you calculate how long it takes for a driver to see a child run into the street, for the brain to process the situation and for the driver to make a decision on how to avoid the hazard, a car traveling just 30 mph will have traveled about 33 feet. Once you add driver reaction time and the time it takes the car to stp, it has now traveled about 104 feet from when the danger was first spotted.

From Safe Kids USA

That’s on a dry road…with clear conditions…without driver distractions. For each second that the driver is distracted, you can add another 33 feet to that stopping distance.

Radar speed signs, variable speed limit signs and violation alert signs are all bout refocusing a driver’s attention away from distractions and back onto his or her own driving speed and road conditions. And they work.

A variety of government studies show that radar speedcheck signs are one of the most highly effective means of reducing accidents in school zones, work zones and other places where pedestrian safety is of particular concern.

And now we know why.

If interested, you can find a nice collection of links to many of these government traffic calming studies at www.informationdisplay.com.

Speed bumps. Just say the word in a crowd and chances are you’ll soon start arguments that’ll make today’s town hall meetings seem sedate. While most everyone agrees speeding cars pose a real danger to school children and other pedestrians, there is a growing contingent of people who are fervently opposed to the use of speed bumps.

While protests against these axle-grinding obstructions continue to top the news throughout the U.K., stateside opposition has also begun to make headlines. From Los Angeles to Tampa Bay; Salt Lake City to Mesa Grande, newspaper articles highlight the fact that citizens across the country are up in arms about the disconcerting use of speed bumps by local governments looking to slow traffic.

There are now social network groups such as The Anti Speed Bump Club on Facebooks and organizations like The National Motorists Association and CRASH (Citizens Against Speed Humps), web sites such as No Speed Bumps.com, and bloggers such as Richard Layman in Washington D.C. and Cartype in Chicago. There are forums and essays, commentators and editorials – all who’ve had enough with this antiquated and obstructive means of slowing traffic.

Do speed bumps work? Sure, for the 1 to 3 feet of space that they take up on the road. But according to several government studies, drivers often try to make up the “lost time” or just relieve their frustrations over their use by speeding up between each bump.

Other reasons that a growing number of people are saying “no” to speed bumps in their neighborhood include:

1. They impede emergency vehicles
2. They simply divert traffic to streets without the obstructions
3. They increase traffic noise
4. They reduce fuel efficiency
5. They increase pollution
6. They ruin car suspension
7. They can be a hazard to wheelchairs and bicyclists

The troubling part of all this is that there are traffic-calming solutions that are more effective and less troublesome. In some cases, simple changes to street design can have a huge impact on slowing cars. Radar speed signs have also proven to be highly effective and highly rated by neighborhoods where they are employed.

Bottom line: speed bumps are on the outs – and should be. They represent an antiquated solution to a legitimate problem – one where alternative solutions offer more effective results without the considerable side effects.

Choosing the Right Radar Speed Sign

1.  Displays with built-in data collection features can be valuable, saving staff time in conducting future studies or proving effectiveness.

2.  Choose sign features based upon need. In some cases, simple signs may be best. Additional features such as data collection may increase technical issues that require management. Also, additional features typically come with additional costs.

3.  Choose a sign that provides a settable speed threshold limit. This prevents drivers from testing to see how high they can get the display to register.

I would like to add a few to this list.

1. Choose signs that look official. There are lots of models out on the market today. Some simply look wrong.  MUTCD provides design guidelines that govern everything from the color and shape of the sign to the size and style of lettering. Even if your application does not require MUTCD compliance, the effectiveness of the display is contingent upon driver perceptions of its legitimacy.
2. Vandal resistance. Displays will get abused. Choose a radar speed sign that is resistant to being hit, slammed and shot at. Solid-state designs are best. Shields protecting the display are important.
3. Easy to repair. If a display is damaged, it’s important that a non expert can easily fix it - in the field. Some radar speed signs require that the display be taken down and sent back to the factory. Others can be easily repaired right from where they are mounted.
4. Clear, visible and focused. Today’s top rated display signs offer designs that make them clearly visible only to THOSE DRIVERS BEING TARGETED. Poorly designed signs can easily distract unintended drivers.

The Bellevue study has several tips for radar speed sign placement. These include:

1. 

   Mounting considerations - radar speed signs

   Set up the radar speed sign at a location that has a minimum distance of 300 feet of clear sight between the display and the drivers.

2. Choose a spot with a convenient power source nearby. If this is not possible, consider solar powered displays.
3. Solar powered signs work best where light levels are adequate for the sign application.
4. Chose a spot where the light from the display will not disrupt homeowners.
5. Avoid obstructions. Try to avoid locations where parked cars and other objects may obstruct the view of oncoming motorists.

Once the location for the radar speed sign is chosen. The Bellevue report provides the following tips on installation:

1. Install the sign at an appropriate angle so that the radar can pick up passing motorists (specified by the manufacturer).
2. Mount with concrete footing.
3. Install at a minimum height of seven feet from the bottom edge of the sign to the ground.
4. Include a posted speed limit sign above the radar speed sign.

We really owe the city of Bellevue our gratitude for sharing this information and personal experience with the rest of us concerned with traffic safety. Their report shares important data that serves as an excellent guide for others looking to slow traffic and increase pedestrian safety.

American drivers apparently have a (very high) set threshold for delays and traffic jams. Until congestion reaches that threshold, we are unwilling to change our behavior or look at alternative transportation strategies. By widening roads we only invite more drivers to fill the gap until more cars are stuck in the same level of congestion as before the widening occurred.

The frustrating part for me is that it seems this pattern is repeated again and again in cities across the country. Widening streets is a costly and inconvenient proposition, yet it seems to be the knee-jerk “solution” no matter how often it is proven ineffective.

According to the 2009 Urban Mobility Report just released by the Texas Transportation Institute (part of Texas A&M University), traffic congestion across the country has actually gone down a bit in the past couple of years. This trend is even more pronounced in Portland, Oregon. It is suspected that smarter development strategies (anti-sprawl planning) and a growing use of mass transit (higher gas prices) are responsible for the downward trend.

Here are some findings:

In 2007, Portland drivers spent an extra 37 hours behind the wheel during rush hour. This is down one hour from 2006 (Nationally, drivers saved about 30 minutes in 2007).

While time spent in rush hour traffic has gone down in the past couple years, it is still much higher than it was five

Congestion USA - latest stats

years ago. In 2007, American drivers spent an additional 34.4 million hours of time in rush hour traffic – up 21 percent from 2002.

Nationwide, getting from point A to point B takes American drivers 25 percent more time during rush hour than during non-commute times (In Portland, it takes almost 30 percent more time).

Portland’s focus on usable mass transit seems to be slowing the rate of congestion growth. While the negative effects of traffic jams typically increase with the size of the city, Portland ranks 34th worst city in rush hour delays even though they are the 24th largest metro area (measured by population). Over the past ten years, commuter delays in Portland rose from 35 hours a year to 37 hours. Nationally, these figures are about 5 times worse (36 hours vs. 41).

It is estimated that, if not for their public transportation system, Portland-area drivers would be adding an additional five hours to their commute time annually – at a cost of about $98 million a year in lost time and wasted gas.

Of course, there are those that continue to demand that we widen roads to solve our traffic problems. To many, mass transit is merely an encroachment on our freedom to drive when, where and how we want. The last thing I feel when I’m sitting in a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam is freedom.

Here are some interesting statistics I gleaned from The American Public Transportation Association and elsewhere that may sway the debate:

• From 1980 to 2005, the U.S. population grew 30 percent, while the number of registered motor vehicles increased 60 percent and the number of vehicle miles traveled grew 95 percent.
• According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, congestion is one of the single biggest threats to our economic prosperity and way of life, costing America $200 billion a year.
• In 2007, congestion caused urban Americans to travel 4.2 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $78 billion.
• In 2007, the the average American family spent $8,758 on transportation.
• In New York, where public transportation is widely available, only 14.0 percent of consumer expenditures are for transportation. In Phoenix, where there are fewer transportation options, consumer expenditures for transportation are 21.5 percent.
• The typical automobile user consumes twice as much oil as the public transportation user.
• Each year the use of public transportation in the United States saves 1.4 billion gallons of oil, representing 4 million gallons of gasoline per day – This is the equivalent of 140,769 fewer service station tanker trucks clogging our streets each year.
• Without public transportation, Americans would have suffered an additional 541 million hours of delay and consumed 340 million more gallons of fuel in 2005. The value of the delay and fuel that would be consumed if there were no public transportation service would be an additional $10.2 billion.
• Public transportation uses reduces delays for both public transportation riders and highway users. In one study of six urban corridors served by high-capacity rail transit, public transportation passengers saved 17,400 hours daily over auto travel. The remaining road users saved an additional 22,000 hours of delay per day due to the absence of vehicles from public transportation users. Travelers on surrounding roads in the corridors saved an additional 20,700 hours daily as spillover congestion was reduced. These reductions represent an annual savings of $225 million in the six corridors analyzed.

Want a few more facts? Consider these statistics the next time you are stuck in traffic.

• Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. population lives in major metropolitan areas of over 1 million, but only 8.3 percent of households have access to subway service.
• Over 50 percent of Americans do not live within one quarter mile of a transit stop.
• Only 4.3 percent of miles on our road system are served by public transportation.
• Two-thirds of rural Americans-60 million people-are almost wholly unserved by public transportation.
• Sprawling development patterns in America’s suburban areas often provide no choice but to use private vehicles for every travel need. This increases congestion requires more roads and parking facilities.

TTI’s 2007 Urban Mobility Report offers a variety of suggestions on how to reduce congestion on U.S. streets. These range from widening and redesigning roads to changing usage patterns and offering viable public transportation alternatives.

My personal observations suggest that widening roads doesn’t work. All of the highway expansions that I’ve witnessed simply resulted in larger backups. Apparently, when it comes to traffic congestion, there is a threshold that we as Americans are willing to persevere. Widening a road allows more cars to sit in the same mess that existed before the extra lanes were added.

I am coming to the conclusion that our best hope for real traffic relief will come in the form of:

1. New technologies that allow individuals to telecommute (work from home).
2. Smart city planning (and re-planning) that creates bike friendly / pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Instead of suburban sprawl where cars are required for even the most basic chores, these are mixed communities where homes and businesses create neighborhoods and getting a cup of coffee or loaf of bread doesn’t require you to get in your car.
3. Viable public transportation. To be viable, it must be fast, clean, safe and convenient.

What are your thoughts? You can leave your comment hear or e-mail me at blog@informationdisplay.com

The facts are clear. Comprehensive traffic signal timing programs work. A list of just some of the proven benefits is impressive:

Timed traffic lights in Longview, WA

▪  Reduces delays
▪  Eliminates traffic congestion
▪  Reduces fuel consumption
▪  Relieves driver frustration
▪  Reduces speeding
▪  Increases pedestrian safety
▪  Improves air quality
▪  Saves cities money
▪ Reduces thru-traffic on
secondary streets

Studies after studies have quantified the benefits that traffic signal timing brings to a community.

A 1995 report from the Texas Department of Transportation concluded that a traffic light synchronization program in Texas saved drivers 20.8 million gallons of gas, 22 million hours of delay time and 729 million stops. The program covered 1,348 intersections in 43 cities and in 1995, cost $7.7 million dollars to implement. The total savings to drivers by way of fuel consumption and delays alone is estimated at $252 million in the first year. This comes out to a whopping $32.30 in savings for every dollar spent on the project!

The results obtained in Texas are no anomaly. Similar results were found by various cities across the U.S.

 ▪  In Los Angeles, a city that knows something about traffic congestion, their Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) was shown to reduce travel time by 12.7 percent, cut stops by more than a third and decrease delays by 21.4 percent.

▪  California’s Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program (FETSIM) resulted in an 8.6 percent reduction in fuel use, 15 percent fewer delays and an overall 7.2 percent savings in travel time.

▪  By synchronizing the lights along an 11 intersection throughway, the city of St. Augustine, Florida realized a 36 percent reduction in delays, an annual savings of 26,000 gallons of gas and a cost savings of $1.1 million.

▪  In Portland, Oregon, city officials spent $70,000 to time 35 traffic signals and saved over 175,000 gallons of gas per year. 

Texas Transportation Institute findngs

These examples represent the good news. The bad news is that according to the United States Department of Transportation, as much as 75 percent of the traffic signals across the U.S. are not optimized for smooth traffic flow. If improvements were made, the U.S. would save about 17 billion gallons of motor fuel each year and reduce harmful emissions by up to 22 percent. A driver that commutes 2 hours to work each day would get back 50 hours of his/her life each year.

Integrated traffic signal systems (ITS) may vary but typically include several components such as an automated data collection device, a centrally controlled traffic signal synchronization system, interconnected traffic signals and adaptive signal controls. A maintenance management program ensures that traffic light synchronization is coordinated along with traffic pattern changes such a commute direction or special events. As longer-term traffic patterns change, signal timing will have to be adjusted. According to DOT, operations and maintenance typically require one traffic engineer for every 75 to 100 signals and one signal technician for every 40 to 50 signals. Retiming should be performed every two to three years at a minimum.

It’s also important that drivers understand that lights are synchronized and that they know the rate of speed they must maintain in order to hit all green lights. To accomplish this, the city of Longview, Washington, installed TrafficFlow Manager displays along their timed routes. Integrated together with the timed traffic signal system, the electronic signs automatically adjust the posted speed limit to inform drivers of the optimal speed they need to travel.

Sounds expensive? Actually, costs for entire ITS systems range from around $3,000 – $5,000 per updated signal. And as we saw in early examples, once installed, cost savings ratios are enormous – 17:1 in California; 62:1 in Texas.

So where do you start?

If you’re looking to get your local officials on board, you may want to firsts send them to this blog or to some of the linked reports. If you’re a city traffic engineer or government official, you may want to start by contacting those that can provide more information on requirements, technologies and funding.

Below are some suggested links:

Research & Innovation Technology Administration: Intelligent Transportation Systems

ITS Application Overview

FHWA Office of Operations, Arterial Management Program

National Traffic Signal Report Card

The Consortium on ITS Training & Education