|
Remember no one is asking for an end to traffic calming, just TC reform. You be the judge.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES
By Kathleen Calongne
Boulder, CO
Traffic calming devices such as speed humps and traffic circles are proliferating on streets in the United States. The absence of warrants and design standards required for "traffic control devices" has allowed control over devices placed on our streets to move from the domain of traffic engineering to the chambers of city councils, placing citizens in unprecedented risk.
Traffic calming devices that slow cars, slow emergency vehicles -- only more. Their longer wheel-base, stiff suspension and high vehicle weight force the vehicles to slow almost to a stop to safely negotiate some devices. Emergency calls are not the rare events transportation personnel would like to believe. The City of Houston, Texas, for example, responds to an average of 150,000 emergency medical calls and 100,000 fire calls per year. There are an average of 350,000 Sudden Cardiac Arrests (SCA) in the United States every year -- approximately 1,000 per day. American Heart Association Statistics indicate that 90% of these incidents occur outside of the hospital environment. By comparison, there are 6,000 pedestrian deaths per year in the United States. Few of these occur on local neighborhood streets. In addition, a ten-year study of pedestrian deaths by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found 35% of the pedestrians were intoxicated. AMA statistics show survivability of victims of SCA correlates directly with the response times of cities. For example, Seattle with a response time of less than 7 minutes saves 30% of its SCA victims. New York, with an average response time of 12 minutes saves only 2%.
While the seconds of delay of individual devices are acknowledged by transportation departments, the cumulative impacts of series of devices are often ignored. Series of devices turn seconds of delay into minutes, as vehicles cannot regain cruising speed between the devices. Calming devices inflict permanent 24-hour delays to emergency response, unlike traffic congestion, which occurs periodically. In addition, a study conducted by the Fire Department of Austin, Texas showed an increase in travel time of up to 100% by ambulances traveling over humps while transporting injured victims.
Transportation personnel express the exchange of slower traffic speeds for longer emergency response times as simply "a tradeoff". They avoid making the analysis which reveals which risk is greater. This analysis, performed by scientist Ronald Bowman for the City of Boulder, Colorado, predicts even minor delays to emergency response impose dramatically greater risks on the population than speeding vehicles. Bowman’s analysis, showed a risk factor of 85 – 1. That is, there is a probability that 85 deaths will occur from delayed emergency response before 1 life might be saved in the neighborhoods by the devices (if it can be shown that the devices do save lives rather than pose hazards in and of themselves). His analysis, which can be duplicated using the statistics of any city, has been verified by a professional mathematician. The analysis can be viewed online at:
http://members.aol.com/raybowman/risk97/eval1.html
Traffic calming devices are a tradeoff of the perception of increased safety from speeding vehicles for the real risk to citizen survivability from delays to emergency response. While the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps states humps should not be placed on emergency response routes, humps and physical devices of all kinds have
Page 2
been used on critical emergency response routes in cities where these programs exist. The proliferation of devices has resulted in moratoriums on devices in cities such as Berkeley, Boulder, Houston, Seattle, Portland Maine and that "Mecca of Traffic Calming", Portland Oregon. In Houston,
humps were so abundantly placed on a street leading to a fire station that fire vehicles only turn one direction out of the station, regardless of the location of the call.
Our citizens with disabilities have complained about the pain and injury certain devices cause them. They state the impediments physically and psychologically limit their access to public rights-of-way. The alteration of our streets by such devices directly conflicts with their guaranteed rights, as set forth in Title II of the ADA. A web site addressing the problems of the disabled with speed humps can be found at :
http:www.digitalthreads.com/rada
Calming devices are installed for reasons, completely unrelated to safety. The devices have been used to segregate communities along racial and socio-economic lines. HUD has identified devices in Houston, Texas, as discriminatory ordering them removed. City councils use calming devices as political tools, driving traffic off the streets of their constituents onto the streets of others.
While projects are initiated on the basis that careful studies will be conducted and guidelines will be followed for each installation, it soon becomes apparent that this process is far too costly. Devices proliferate at-will, at alarming speed, as residents of parallel streets seek to protect themselves from the diversion of traffic that always accompanies an installation. Traffic diversion subsequently lowers the property values and changes the livability of the homeowners on the affected streets.
Devices are installed on the premise they will improve resident safety. However, no comprehensive studies relating calming devices to increased pedestrian or driver safety in the United States have been performed. Increases in accidents have been recorded after some installations. For example, experimental devices placed on a street to protect children at local schools in Portland, Maine, resulted in an increase in accidents of 35%. At an intersection in Boulder Colorado, accidents increased 100% after the installation of an experimental traffic circle. Yet, the circle in Boulder and the devices in Portland Maine, remain on the street today.
Calming projects have proceeded in our country without adequate scientific evaluation or consideration of their compatibility with American ethics, laws and ideas. An unethical attempt has been made to silence all citizen opposition. Fire chiefs, as city employees, fear professional retribution and often will not voice their concern until the level of risk becomes intolerable.
That we need to control speeding is not in question. That our local governments are being allowed to treat the problem with a cure proven to impose risk far greater than it improves, is. I am one of a growing network of citizens across the United States, who has recognized this danger and is calling for a nationwide moratorium on devices until regulations are established to ensure their responsible use. The enclosed is a summary of the problems associated with traffic calming projects, supported by data contained in a 400 page report of my three years’ research, and available to all interested individuals at my cost.
Kathleen Calongne
e-mail: kcalongne@compuserve.com
========================================
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAFFIC CALMING
DEVICES IN THE UNITED STATES
By Kathleen Calongne
Boulder, Colorado
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONCERNS - Delay to emergency response vehicles by traffic calming devices has resulted in moratoriums as well as removal of devices in cities around the country. Fire Departments warn of the increased risk caused by the rapid proliferation of devices once a calming project has begun. A video-taped discussion filmed by the City of Portland Fire Department states the department was denied participation in the implementation of Portland's calming program and in fact, was prevented by its Transportation Division from voicing their concerns publicly. An analysis by Ray Bowman of Boulder, CO, shows that the population is at far greater risk from delayed emergency response than they are from speeding vehicles. His analysis, verified by a professional mathematician can be viewed online at:
http://members.aol.com/raybowman/risk97/eval1.html
Humps on a street in Gaithersberg, Maryland attributed to the death of a child in a burning home. A firefighter descended to the basement of the home to recue the child when "flashover" occurred, forcing his exit from the building. The delay of the humps on the street could have provided the precious seconds needed to rescue the child. A resident of Houston, Texas is brain dead because of a gate installed as part of Houston's project. Paramedics, unable to open the gate, were forced to take another route. Gates on some of Houston's public streets have been ordered opened because of concerns for emergency response.
There are documented injuries of firefighters who have suffered compressed vertebrae from hitting the roofs of their cabs, after encountering speed humps unexpectedly. One such incident has placed a Bethesda, Maryland firefighter on permanent disability.
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - Citizens in Houston, Texas filed a complaint with HUD that gates installed as part of a calming project were used to segregate communities along racial and socio-economic lines. HUD found the City of Houston in violation of the civil rights of its citizens and ordered the gates removed. Gates were replaced with humps to effectively, though less obviously, achieve the same result - denial of access by minorities and tenants of lesser socio-economic status to the use of adjacent neighborhoods.
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT - Citizens are threatening to file suit against the City of Portland, Maine to remove experimental mitigation devices. Funds received for the experimental project from the federal CMAQ Program (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) were rescinded when it was shown that the humps and raised crossings increased emissions by 48% without taking into considerations the increased emissions from braking and acceleration caused by the devices. The State of Maine has been ordered under the federal Clean Air Act to show evidence of compliance in reducing pollutants. Section 113, "Federal Enforcement", states fines including imprisonment will be levied against entities responsible for knowingly increasing the release of pollutants into the air. Yet, the experiment remains on the street. An Austrian study of vehicles driving on streets with speed humps measured an increase of emissions 10 times greater than vehicles on streets without humps
The Transport Research Laboratory, a research agency of the Department of Transportation in the United Kingdom conducted emissions tests on roads with speed humps and found the following increase in emissions:
Schemes with a 75 metre hump spacing . . . showed increases in CO and HC of around 70 – 80% and 70 – 100% respectively, and an increase in CO2 of around 50-60%."
Page 2
To calculate the possible effect of smoother driving after the installation of humps (without braking and acceleration) TRL measured the change in emissions associated with moving from a constant speed of 30 mph to a constant speed of 20 mph and found the following results:
CO and HC increased by 40 – 80%, CO2 by 30 – 40% and NOx by 20 – 30 %.
VIOLATION OF THE ADA - A moratorium is presently in effect on speed humps in Berkeley, California because of emergency response concerns and because of complaints by the disabled community. The pain and injury certain physical devices cause some disabled citizens limits their access to public-rights-of-way. Title II requires all new facilities be made readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. It further states that all alterations to facilities must be accessible and usable to the maximum extent feasible.
The pain and discomfort slowing devices cause some disabled residents, makes roads physically and psychologically less accessible. A letter from the Commission on Disabilities, Berkeley, CA has requested the City of Berkeley write John Wodach, Disability Rights Section, U.S. Department of Justice and Charlene MacKenzie, ADA Coordinator, California Department of Transportation to inform them of the problems humps cause disabled persons and to request they work with the federal DOT to develop standards for compliance for roadway access for the disabled. A lawsuit was filed against the City of Bethesda, MD by a disabled resident for placing speed humps on all streets of access to his home. A website addressing the concerns of the disabled with physical devices can be found at:
http://www.digitalthreads.com/rada/
LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS - In August 1998, a Florida judge ruled in favor of two residents of Sarasota who filed suit against that city for using devices for traffic control that are not approved traffic control devices in the U.S. DOT, MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices). States have adopted the MUTCD as a guideline for the placement and use of traffic control devices. Adherence to the "warrants" established for the approved devices renders cities protection from liability for the placement of the devices.
Calming devices are not listed as approved traffic control devices in the MUTCD, they are defined by the U.S. DOT as "geometric design features of the roadway." Therefore, no warrants have been established for their use. The legal departments of some cities have reasoned that their absence from the MUTCD indicates no authorization for municipalities to place the devices on their streets.
There are no specific requirements for signage for traffic calming devices. They are typically marked with the yellow, diamond shaped sign used to warn of a street hazard. Cities are required to keep their streets free of hazards. Devices can cause injury to drivers in some vehicles, traveling over the devices at posted speed limits. One legal department has expressed concern cities could be liable not only because of injury caused directly by a device, but for injury and damage incurred by actions made by drivers because of a device, such as swerving around them. Legal departments also express concern that cities could be held liable for personal injury or death because of emergency response delays caused by the devices.
CONFLICT - It has been said that "traffic calming" has become "people calming". Even pro-calming data acknowledges the volatility of the debate. Diversion of traffic to less traveled streets always accompanies an installation of devices, resulting in a change in the livability and the desirability of the property on the affected streets. Residents are often irate about the discomfort of the devices, the increased vehicle noise at the devices, the damage to their vehicles and the visual pollution of the signage and pavement markings needed to warn drivers of the devices. Enduring angst and divisiveness often remains in the neighborhoods long after an installation is complete.
October, 1999