speed control now

David Zipper, a journalist who frequently writes on transportation safety, just wrote for Bloomberg CityLab The Best Tactics for Tackling Speeders. The article summarizes his research briefing on MIT Mobility Initiative Tactics to Reduce Urban Vehicle Speeds.

This is timely as the City of Sacramento is updating its Vision Zero Action Plan.

The main point of the article is that speed control for safety is way more popular with society than the impression one would get from reading media, which has both a bias to highlight controversy when there really isn’t much, and the windshield bias of those who drive rather than walk, bicycle, and transit.

“What I learned surprised me. With rare exceptions, these strategies to reduce speeding are effective, often to a striking degree. And contrary to common perceptions, residents generally support them.”

He also lists a number of speed control measures, in the article, and more in the paper, which are probably familiar:

  • speed humps: The City of Sacramento has certainly put in a number of speed humps. Problem is, the design slows motor vehicles only momentarily, and drivers return to their previous speed over a very short distance. The literature is variable as to whether speed humps or speed tables are more effective, but my own hours of observation indicate that tables are more effective. A speed table with crosswalk, matching the height of the curb at six inches, is far more effective than a hump at 3 inches.
  • automatic traffic cameras: The City of Sacramento once had red-light running cameras, but the program ceased when the county program ceased. The city has said it will install cameras and implement a program in alignment with new state laws, however, no time frame or budget had been identified. Speed cameras have been authorized for a few cities as a pilot program, and Sacramento is not one of them.
  • conversions to make one-way arterials bidirectional: The City of Sacramento has made one conversion, of 5th Street, which was converted last year. It seems successful. However, the city used this project as an excuse to install completely new signal heads and signal controllers, rather than reusing any materials. At upwards of $1M per intersection, this approach guarantees that few conversions will be done.
  • adjusting traffic signalizations: The City of Sacramento has talked about this, but not done so. The ‘green wave’ used in other cities, where signals are set to average bicyclist speed of about 13 mph, are very effective at calming traffic. In the central city, signals are set to 28 mph, which encourages drivers to speed in order to beat the next signal.
  • posted speed reductions: The City of Sacramento has done this for some school zones, but has refused to do it anywhere else. “Simply lowering speed limits works, too. Boston’s 2017 move to reduce its default speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph produced a relative 29% decline in vehicles exceeding 35 mph…”
  • road diets: The City of Sacramento has implemented road diets on several arterial streets, reducing the number of lanes and sometimes reducing the width of lanes. However, these are major projects that require a lot of money, grants from the federal, state or regional agencies. This greatly limits the number of roadways that can be ‘fixed’.

The article concludes with: “The missing link: policymakers courageous enough to do the right thing.”

traffic calming in the central city

There are four types of traffic calming that have been used in Sacramento central city: median islands, traffic circles, traffic diverters, and speed humps. It was recently said by city staff that only speed humps are a current solution for traffic calming, but I’d really like the city to bring back diverters.

Median islands: These islands, placed at the approaches to intersections, provide some traffic calming effect, offer walkers a refuge in the middle of a crossing (though it does not meet current ADA standards for refuge). Below is a typical setting, this one at D Street & 23rd Street. Though the median does slow some drivers, other drivers use these as slalom courses. On streets with bike lanes, the bike lanes are generally dropped before the intersection in order to accommodate the median, but his is poor practice, leaving bicyclists either feeling vulnerable or actually vulnerable at just the wrong location.

median island, D St & 23rd St, Sacramento

Traffic circles: Traffic circles deflect drivers to the side, a somewhat more effective solution, but have the same problem for bicyclists as the median islands, with bike lanes dropped at the critical point. These traffic circles are NOT roundabouts. A correctly designed roundabout allow the bicyclist to choose between continuing in the general purpose travel lane, or using a sidewalk or sidewalk adjacent bypass. Roundabouts also have a continuous flow, only requiring a driver or bicyclists to yield to someone already in the roundabout, but traffic circles have stop signs on one of the cross streets. Roundabouts also have enough deflection that a driver must slow down to navigate, whereas most traffic circles have only a slight deflection and therefore limited slowing value.

The central city does not have any roundabouts, and they are rare in the region. They can be a reasonable solution at the intersection of two arterial roadways, again, IF correctly designed. The footprint of a real roundabout is bigger than an urban intersection. Below is a typical setting, this one at 13th Street & F Street.

traffic circle, 13th St & F St, Sacramento

Speed humps: Speed humps slow drivers crossing over them. Many people still call these speed bumps, but the sharp bumps are now illegal on streets and are only found in private parking lots. These can also be speed tables, longer than the humps, perhaps higher, and sometimes hosting a crosswalk on top. There are two problems with humps: 1) drivers with good suspensions can sail over these without slowing, and ironically the drivers of high value motor vehicles are the ones most likely to have good suspensions and to not slow for any reason; and 2) drivers accelerate back to speed immediately after the hump, so it only has a traffic calming effect at that particular point. Often speed humps have cut-throughs for emergency vehicles, so they don’t have to slow, but wide stance pickup trucks can use the same cut-throughs, and the cut-throughs are often placed so as to inconvenience bicyclists.

Stop signs: Stop signs calm traffic somewhat by requiring drivers to slow at intersections. Anyone who thinks that drivers actually stop at stop signs, in the absence of conflicting and risky traffic, has not actually stood at an intersection and observed driver behavior. Almost no one stops at stop signs unless they have to. This includes law enforcement officers. Stop signs are the most commonly requested traffic calming solutions by people who live on or near the street. But they are simply not very effective. Drivers accelerate away from the stop signs and are soon going just as fast as they were before, likely 10 to 25 mph over the posted speed limit. While not a major issue, this stop and go traffic adds to air pollution.

Traffic diverters: Traffic diverters turn motor vehicles off a street, but allow bicyclists through. There are a number of these in the central city, and in my opinion, they work great. The subsequent blocks are quiet and safe, at least until the street has regained traffic from other directions. They make is difficult to continue for long distances in a single line of travel, which is a good effect, as it discourages low value driving trips. My observation is that these also increase compliance with stop signs. It is true that some scofflaw drivers will go around these diverters, but at least they have slowed considerably to do so. Below is a typical diverter, this one at 20th Street & D Street.

traffic diverter, 20th St & D St, Sacramento

There are a number of other traffic calming treatments, but so far as I know none are present in the centra city, so I’ve not addressed them.

I don’t think the city should install any more median islands or traffic circles, due to the negative impact on bicyclists. However, I’m OK with letting those that exist remain, as bicyclists and walkers have grown accustomed to them and mostly know how to deal with them. I’m against more stop signs, except where a stop-controlled intersection replaces a signal-controlled intersection (of which there are a number of candidates in the central city). I don’t think speed humps are effective, and I see a speed hump as an admission of a failed street design.

What I would like to see is more traffic diverters, many of them! Every street that is not a one-way arterial in the central city should have a diverter about every eight blocks. This will make is less pleasant for commuters, who have to zig-zag to get where they are going. It will also cause locals to reconsider driving trips, realizing that bicycle or walking trips are easier and more straightforward. It will ensure that more of our streets are calm and peaceful, with less driver intimidation of walkers and bicyclists.

I hope to find the time to make a map of all the traffic diverters in the central city, and will add that reference here when I do.