DOCSLIB.ORG

Temporary Speed Hump Impact Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Temporary Speed Hump Impact Evaluation TEMPORARY SPEED HUMP IMPACT EVALUATION CTRE Project 00-73 Sponsored by the Office of Traffic and Safety, Iowa Department of Transportation CTRE Center for Transportation Research and Education Final Report ● July 2002 The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Iowa Department of Transportation. CTRE’s mission is to develop and implement innovative methods, materials, and technologies for improving transportation efficiency, safety, and reliability while improving the learning environment of students, faculty, and staff in transportation-related fields. TEMPORARY SPEED HUMP IMPACT EVALUATION CTRE Project 00-73 Principal Investigator Shauna Hallmark Assistant Professor of Civil and Construction Engineering, Iowa State University Transportation Engineer, Center for Transportation Research and Education Co-Principal Investigators Keith Knapp Former Assistant Professor of Civil and Construction Engineering, Iowa State University Former Manager of Traffic Engineering and Traffic Safety Programs, Center for Transportation Research and Education Gary Thomas Former Assistant Professor of Civil and Construction Engineering, Iowa State University Former Transportation Engineer, Center for Transportation Research and Education Research Assistant Dan Smith Authors: Dan Smith, Shauna Hallmark, Keith Knapp, and Gary Thomas Preparation of this report was financed in part through funds provided by the Iowa Department of Transportation through its research management agreement with the Center for Transportation Research and Education. Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University 2901 South Loop Drive, Suite 3100 Ames, Iowa 50010-8632 Telephone: 515-294-8103 Fax: 515-294-0467 www.ctre.iastate.edu Final Report • July 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................VII INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Problem Statement...............................................................................................................1 Research Objectives.............................................................................................................2 Organization of Report ........................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................4 History of Traffic Calming ..................................................................................................4 Traffic Calming Devices......................................................................................................5 Volume Control Devices..........................................................................................5 Speed Control Devices.............................................................................................6 Temporary Traffic Calming.................................................................................................8 Temporary and Permanent Speed Hump/Table Design.......................................................8 Construction Materials and Practices.......................................................................8 Placement and Spacing ............................................................................................9 Geometric Design ..................................................................................................12 Signing and Marking..............................................................................................13 Speed Hump/Table Impacts...............................................................................................20 Impact on Emergency Response Vehicles.............................................................21 Speed Reduction ....................................................................................................21 Speed Hump/Table Public Opinion ...................................................................................30 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................32 Site Descriptions ................................................................................................................33 Roosevelt Drive—Atlantic, Iowa...........................................................................33 Redwood Drive—Atlantic, Iowa ...........................................................................34 Canal Shore Drive—Le Claire, Iowa.....................................................................36 Speed Hump/Table Installations........................................................................................37 Installation Process ................................................................................................39 Speed Hump/Table Site Locations.........................................................................39 Signing and Markings............................................................................................42 Data Collection Methodology............................................................................................44 Speed Data Collection............................................................................................46 Volume Data Collection ........................................................................................49 Resident Survey .................................................................................................................49 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS............................................................................................50 Data Preparation.................................................................................................................50 Comparison of Mean Speeds .............................................................................................50 Comparison of Mean Speeds Before and While Speed Hump Was In Place........52 Comparison of Mean Speeds Before and While Speed Table Was In Place.........53 Comparison of Mean Speeds for Speed Hump Versus Speed Table.....................56 iii Comparison of Mean Speeds Before and After Speed Hump and Table Were Installed..................................................................................................................56 Reduction of Top Vehicle Speeds......................................................................................56 Changes in Speed Ranges ......................................................................................59 Changes in 85th Percentile Speed..........................................................................61 Optimum Spacing ..............................................................................................................64 Comparison of Speed Profiles ...............................................................................65 Determination of Optimum Spacing......................................................................70 Volume Reduction .............................................................................................................71 Description of Mann-Whitney Test .......................................................................75 Volume Results......................................................................................................75 Study Limitations...............................................................................................................76 RESIDENT SURVEY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..................................................................81 Question One: Familiarity..................................................................................................81 Question Two: Perceived Speed Change...........................................................................82 Question Three: Perceived Volume Change......................................................................83 Question Four: “What do you like most about the speed hump”?.....................................84 Question Five: “What do you like least about the speed hump”?......................................85 Question Six: Whether Speed Humps/Tables Should Be Installed ...................................86 Question Seven: Preferred Device.....................................................................................87 Question Eight: Additional Comments..............................................................................88 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................90 Average Vehicle Speeds ....................................................................................................90 Reduction of Top Vehicle Speeds......................................................................................91 Optimum Spacing ..............................................................................................................91 Speed Hump Versus Speed Table......................................................................................92 Short-Term Impact of Temporary Devices........................................................................93 Changes in Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................................93
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic
    MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for Streets and Highways Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic Dotted line indicates edge of binder spine. MM UU TT CC DD U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2003 Edition Page i The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced in the MUTCD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 [email protected] Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers
    [Show full text]
  • Application for Speed Bump Installation
    Oakland Department of Transportation APPLICATION FOR SPEED BUMP INSTALLATION ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SPEED BUMPS Advantages: • The overall speed of traffic is reduced near speed bumps. • Speed bumps create an impression that discourages speeding and “cut through” trafficking. • Speed bumps are self-enforcing. Disadvantages: • The response time for emergency vehicles may be increased by speed bumps. • Some residents may object to the visual impact of speed bumps—the signs and the markings that accompany them. • There will be an increase in vehicle emissions and noise near speed bumps. • Inconvenient access as a result of speed bumps may be imposed on some parts of the neighborhood. • Speed bumps may displace traffic to neighboring streets. • Although speeds will be reduced immediately next to them, drivers tend to speed up after passing or traveling between speed bumps. REQUESTER INFORMATION A. Location Please provide the name of the street block to be considered. Indicate the boundaries of the block by identifying the intersecting street on each end. A separate application is required for another block. Street Name: _____________________________________________ From: _____________________________________ To: _________________________________ B. Contact Information Each application must contain a contact person who will receive all correspondence from the City and be responsible for gathering evidence of support when requested. Name: ________________________________ Email Address: ____________________________ Address: _________________________________________________ Zip Code: ______________ Daytime Phone #: _______________________ Additional Phone #: _________________________ C. Concerns Please tell us about the specific concerns you have for this segment of the street. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE THAT AFTER RECEIVING A QUALIFYING PETITION THE CITY WILL CONDUCT AN INSPECTION TO DETERMINE IF SPEED BUMPS ARE FEASIBLE.
    [Show full text]
  • Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team
    Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team Project Leads: Nancy Smith Lea, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Ray Tomalty, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Researchers: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Marvin Macaraig, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Julia Malmo-Laycock, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Report Design: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Cover Photo: Tour de l’ile, Go Bike Montreal Festival, Montreal by Maxime Juneau/APMJ Project Partner: Please cite as: Benni, J., Macaraig, M., Malmo-Laycock, J., Smith Lea, N. & Tomalty, R. (2019). Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada. Toronto: Clean Air Partnership. CONTENTS List of Figures 4 List of Tables 7 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction 12 2. Costs of Bicycle Infrastructure Measures 13 Introduction 14 On-street facilities 16 Intersection & crossing treatments 26 Traffic calming treatments 32 Off-street facilities 39 Accessory & support features 43 3. Costs of Cycling Programs 51 Introduction 52 Training programs 54 Repair & maintenance 58 Events 60 Supports & programs 63 Conclusion 71 References 72 Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Bollard protected cycle track on Bloor Street, Toronto, ON ..................................................... 16 Figure 2: Adjustable concrete barrier protected cycle track on Sherbrook St, Winnipeg, ON ............ 17 Figure 3: Concrete median protected cycle track on Pandora Ave in Victoria, BC ............................ 18 Figure 4: Pandora Avenue Protected Bicycle Lane Facility Map ............................................................ 19 Figure 5: Floating Bus Stop on Pandora Avenue ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 6: Raised pedestrian crossings on Pandora Avenue .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Speed Hump Impact Evaluation
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1-1-2002 Temporary speed hump impact evaluation Daniel James Smith Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Recommended Citation Smith, Daniel James, "Temporary speed hump impact evaluation" (2002). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 21323. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/21323 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Temporary speed hump impact evaluation by Daniel James Smith A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Civil Engineering (Transportation Engineering) Program of Study Committee: Dr. Keith Knapp, Co-major Professor Dr. Shauna Hallmark, Co-major Professor Dr. Gary Thomas Dr. William Meeker Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2002 11 Graduate College Iowa State University This is to certify that the master's thesis of Daniel James Smith has met the thesis requirements oflowa State University Signatures have been redacted for privacy lll TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Policy on Children at Play Signs
    MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Traffic Department SPEED HUMP FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS HUMPS VERSUS BUMPS? A speed hump is a (typically) rounded traffic calming device designed to reduce vehicles speeds on residential streets. They are constructed across the road, and, often installed in a series of several humps to reduce the potential for drivers to gain any significant benefit from speeding once the vehicle has crossed the hump. The height of the device ranges from 3 to 4 inches, and, is typically 13 feet long (as measured along the center of the road) for the humps used here in Anchorage, and is constructed to a very specific curvature over which the vehicles travel. In addition, warning signs are placed at the location of the device to provide information that the hump is located on the road (important to motorists, emergency responders, and street maintenance personnel) and pavement markings on the hump to provide an added visual warning of the device. Humps are used in locations on residential streets with low to moderate volumes (typically no less than 500 vehicles per day – about 50 homes and no greater than 1000 to 1500 vehicles per day), and not major roadways serving as connections between neighborhoods, and are rarely used on bus routes or primary emergency response routes. 1. What is a speed hump, and what is its purpose? A speed hump is a traffic control/calming device constructed with asphalt concrete. It is constructed to a very specific design that uses one of several potential vertical layouts, and used to control speeds – typically effective only when several humps are used on a section of roadway, about 400 to 500 feet apart.
    [Show full text]
  • Easy Rider® Rubber Speed Bump Product Information Brochure Pictured: Speed Bump
    EASY RIDER® RUBBER SPEED BUMP PRODUCT INFORMATION BROCHURE PICTURED: SPEED BUMP Checkers™ is a full-service manufacturer of parking lot safety solutions. We design and manufacture traffic control products that help cars navigate and park safely. Our main goal has been to create solutions that protect motorists and pedestrians from the perils of today’s parking lots. As such, Checkers™ products have been designed and developed with speed reduction, driver and pedestrian safety in mind. All our solutions are manufactured from 100% recycled rubber and plastic. Our speed bumps or parking blocks, for example, are longer lasting, highly visible, and more car-friendly than asphalt or concrete alternatives. Not only are Checkers™ traffic safety solutions environmentally friendly, they can also be installed for either temporary or permanent use. • Rubber speed bumps greatly outlast concrete or • Pliable rubber protects vehicles as well as curbs asphalt competitors • Highly-reflective colored tape ensures the speed • Rubber speed bumps don’t degrade like concrete bump will be visible speed bumps, keeping parking lots • Easy-to-install, either on asphalt or concrete surfaces aesthetically pleasing • Can be used for temporary or • Channeled bottom for cabling and piping permanent applications • High-quality rubber is resistant to weather, salts, • Great for commercial and residential applications and chemicals • End caps available and sold separately • Recycled rubber construction is environmentally friendly 800-438-9336 • CHECKERS-SAFETY.COM PRODUCT INFORMATION Easy Rider® Speed Bump reduces vehicle speeds to 2-5 mph (approximate), making parking lots or light traffic streets safer for pedestrians and motorists. Constructed from 100% recycled tires, Easy Rider® speed bumps are preformed to ensure a smooth, safe ride.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Calming Traffic Calming Traffic Calming Traffic Calming
    Traffic Calming Traffic Calming Traffic Traffic Calming Traffic Traffic Calming Traffic Calming .............................................................................................................................173 Cycle Segregation Unit .......................................................................................................184 B Traffic Islands - Permanent ...................................................................................................174 www.marshalls.co.uk/commercial/traffic-calming Traffic Islands - Demountable .............................................................................................175 Protective Guardrailing ...........................................................................................................176 Traffic Ramps .................................................................................................................................177 S-Ramp .............................................................................................................................................178 Speed Cushions ...........................................................................................................................179 Speedcheck ...................................................................................................................................180 Keycheck ..........................................................................................................................................181 Interlocking Traffic Blocks
    [Show full text]
  • DDOT Speed Hump Engineering Guide
    DDOT Speed Hump Request Procedures and Page 1 of 19 Engineering Guide lines 2010 D ISTRICT D EPARTMENT OF T RANSPORTATION Page 2 of 19 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SPEED HUMPS .................................................................................................. 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SPEED HUMPS ......................................................................................................... 4 REQUEST PROCEDURES FOR SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION ................................................................... 4 ENGINEERING EVALUATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ......................................................................... 5 INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS .................................................................................................................... 5 MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF SPEED HUMPS ....................................................................................... 5 SPEED HUMP ENGINEERING DESIGN GUIDELINES .................................................................................... 6 REQUEST FORM & PETITION FOR SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION ....................................................... 14 REQUEST FORM & PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF SPEED HUMPS.......................................................... 17 Page 3 of 19 I. Introduction (75%) support of the households in the candidate block or street segment.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from Cities in the Portland, OR Region
    Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region FINAL DRAFT Lynn Weigand, Ph.D. Nathan McNeil, M.U.R.P. Jennifer Dill, Ph.D. June 2013 This report was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, through its Active Living Research program. Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region Lynn Weigand, PhD, Portland State University Nathan McNeil, MURP, Portland State University* Jennifer Dill, PhD, Portland State University *corresponding author: [email protected] Portland State University Center for Urban Studies Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 June 2013 All photos, unless otherwise noted, were taken by the report authors. The authors are grateful to the following peer reviewers for their useful comments, which improved the document: Angie Cradock, ScD, MPE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and Kevin J. Krizek, PhD, University of Colorado Boulder. Any errors or omissions, however, are the responsibility of the authors. CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. i Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Bike Lanes................................................................................................................................ 7 Wayfinding Signs and Pavement Markings .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements
    Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements A Resource for Researchers, Engineers, Planners, and the General Public Authors: Max A. Bushell, Bryan W. Poole, Charles V. Zegeer, Daniel A. Rodriguez UNC Highway Safety Research Center Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through its Active Living Research program October, 2013 Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Authors .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 The Highway Safety Research Center ........................................................................................................... 4 Cover Page Photo Credits ..................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Making the Case for Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure ......................................................................... 6 Walking/Bicycling and Public Health ............................................................................................................ 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Regulation of Speed Bumps on Local Highways
    GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 599-a; HIGHWAY LAW §§ 10, 102, 193, 194, 195; VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW §§ 153, 1621, 1680, 1682; 17 N.Y.C.R.R. Part V, § 200.9(b) Installation of a speed bump on a town highway is not prohibited by State law, but is regulated as a highway design feature. October 28, 2003 Richard W. Hoyt, Esq. Informal Opinion Town Attorney No. 2003-15 Town of Montgomery 43 Orchard Street P.O. Box 402 Walden, New York 12586 Dear Mr. Hoyt: You have asked, in your capacity as attorney for the Town of Montgomery, whether the Town is authorized to install “speed bumps” or similar speed control devices on a town highway. You have specified that the Town is interested in using such devices to slow traffic on a short town highway that serves as a connection between two state highways. We conclude that the installation of a speed bump on a town highway is not prohibited by State law, but is regulated as a highway design feature. Background Speed bumps are installations of raised pavement on roads or parking lots intended to slow vehicular traffic; they are generally three to six inches in height and one to three feet in length across the roadway or driving area. See JKS Associates, Inc., INCA Engineers, Inc. & R. David MacDonald, A Guidebook for Residential Traffic Management 41 (Dec. 1994), reprinted in N.Y.S. Dep’t of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, ch. 25, App. A (Rev. 36, Feb. 5, 1999). Speed bumps generally are intended to reduce vehicle speeds to five to ten miles per hour.
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation of Planning Strategies for Track Allocation at Marshalling Yards
    Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XVI 465 Simulation of planning strategies for track allocation at marshalling yards M. Bohlin1, S. Gestrelius1 & F. Khoshniyat1,2 1SICS Swedish ICT, Kista, Sweden 2Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Abstract Planning the operational procedures in a railway marshalling yard is a complex problem. When a train arrives at a marshalling yard, it is uncoupled at an arrival yard and then its cars are rolled to a classification yard. All cars should eventually be rolled to the classification track that has been assigned to the train they’re supposed to depart with. However, there is normally not enough capacity to compound all trains at once. In Sweden, cars arriving before a track has been assigned to their train can be stored on separate tracks called mixing tracks. All cars on mixing tracks will be pulled back to the arrival yard, and then rolled to the classification yard again to allow for reclassification. Today all procedures are planned by experienced dispatchers, but there are no documented strategies or guidelines for efficient manual planning. The aim of this paper is to examine operational planning strategies that could help dispatchers find a feasible marshalling schedule that minimizes unnecessary mixing. In order to achieve this goal, two different online planning strategies have been tested using deterministic and stochastic simulation. The Hallsberg marshalling yard was used as a case study, and was simulated for the time period between December 2010 and May 2011. The first tested strategy simply assigns tracks to trains on a first come-first served basis, while the second strategy uses time limits to determine when tracks should be assigned to departing trains.
    [Show full text]