30+ radar speed signs in Bellevue, WA

Perhaps the most comprehensive field study on the effectiveness of radar speed signs was just conducted by the city of Bellevue, Washington. Results were so overwhelmingly positive that the city rewrote their own rulebook on when and how to use these traffic-calming displays.

Prior to the study, Bellevue city officials viewed radar speedcheck signs as a secondary fallback option for applications where speedbumps, traffic circles or other physical traffic calming measures just could not be installed. But that has changed. Due in most part to the results of their own study, Bellevue has now installed more than thirty permanently mounted radar speed displays around school zones, on neighborhood streets and other locations where speeding traffic is a concern – and in many cases, in locations where speedbumps might once have been employed.

Old habits are hard to break. It doesn’t take a scientist to conclude that a big obstruction in the street (speedbump) will tend to slow drivers, and so installing them has often been the knee-jerk response that many cities exhibit when speeding traffic becomes an issue. 

What simple observation may not show, however, are some of the signficiant drawbacks to speedbumps. Drivers, for instance, oftentimes increase their speed from bump to bump. Speedbumps slow fire trucks, ambulances and other emergency vehicles and may increase traffic noise and present a hazard to bicyclists and handicap pedestrians.  The installation of speedbumps often result in simply shifting traffic from a main through route to quiet neighborhood side streets.

According to the Bellevue report, radar speed signs have a similar effect in slowing traffic, without the drawbacks associated with traffic calming road obstructions. Speedcheck signs have no effect on emergency vehicles or bicycles. They don’t cause increased traffic noise and they don’t cause damage to your automobile.

Perhaps most surprising to those following the Bellevue study is that the radar speedcheck signs continued to be effective over a long period of time. In some cases average traffic speeds continued to decrease years after the radar displays were first installed.

The Bellevue report not only provided evidence of the effectivness of radar speedcheck signs but also provided experienced recommendations on choosing and installing the displays. A review of these findings coming up in our next blog post.

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