At last night’s city commission meeting, Public Works Manager David Junger informed the commission that the 30 mph speed limit recently approved by the commission had been rejected by the Georgia Department of Transportation and would have to be raised back to 35mph.
The resulting conversation revealed some interesting rules regarding setting speed limits. First, local governments can put up speed limit signs that say whatever they want, but the only enforceable limits are those backed up by the GDOT. Secondly, GDOT uses some sort of “85% rule” to determine road speed limits, though I must admit Mr. Junger was talking over my head at that point and yelling follow-up questions at my television went unnoticed.
So, the city commission begrudgingly approved replaceing the old 30mph signs with the old 35mph signs. (The enforceable speed limit was never actually changed) The move was made with the express intent that the city would now begin strongly enforcing the speed limit in the West Howard corridor.
City Manager Peggy Merriss reminded the commission – and those in attendance – that much of that strip of road is still a school zone with a 25mph limit during school hours. According to Ms. Merriss, school zone fines are often in excess of $400 a pop.
A round-about way to slow traffic on West Howard but an action to be applauded.
Maybe they could put those 30 mph signs to use on Oakview Road, unless GDOT controls that speed limit, too. 35 mph is too fast for that residential street, especially since so many drivers treat a maximum speed limit as a suggestion.
The 85% is ass-backward. Instead of designing and engineering streets to comfortably foster a particular desired speed, it works like this: Build a road. Then, at a time when traffic is flowing freely, measure driver speeds. The speed that is not being exceeded by 85% of drivers becomes the official speed limit.
So essentially whoever has control over the road design establishes the speed limit.
Gold star for you. And road design in Georgia is dictated by the AASHTO Green Book which specs out design speeds that are 5 to 10 mph higher than the ultimate desired speed. So, for example, in a residential situation where the anticipated posted speed would be 25mph, the road is engineered to safely accommodate traffic at 35mph. Then they wonder why people feel safe speeding. Bleh.
I hope the start to enforce the speed limit on W Howard . I live off that road and the cars fly down at such a high speed. It would be nice to finally see some action to make that stretch safer and slower.
I’m your neighbor on Adair Street, a favorite cut-through street.
People fly down that street at highway speeds, and act impatient if I’m trying to back out my driveway or cross the street with groceries.
People! If you’re on a residential street, please drive slowly and courteously.
I’ve lobbied — in vain — for signs telling people that they are REQUIRED to stop at a crosswalk, specifically the crosswalk at Adair and W. Howard that is designed to get kids to school safely.
Frankly, I don’t think cars really NEED to drive that fast on the section of W. Howard that is in the city of Decatur. Whole lotta pedestrians, children going to school, neighborhoods.
I agree with Diane: “Frankly, I don’t think cars really NEED to drive that fast on the section of W. Howard that is in the city of Decatur. Whole lotta pedestrians, children going to school, neighborhoods.” Furthermore, nobody needs to drive as fast as they do on Dekalb Avenue. Last week I had an opportunity to travel Dekalb Ave. eastbound when traffic was light, from Krog St. to Rocky Ford. Driving around 40 mph, I caught every single green light. If people would slow down, they’d get where they’re going faster! (and increase safety for themselves, other motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians)
Reposting the speed limit to the “higher” limit will allow the City to run radar enforcement – which they could not do because GDOT had not approved the lower speed limit. Since the 85% speed was around 44 MPH (if I remember correctly), going “up” to a higher speed limit should allow the City to enforce a lower speed through radar, etc.
And I’m sure y’all all know that GDOT considers a sidewalk to be a part of the “vehicle recovery zone”? That’s the area next to the roadway that GDOT will not allow fixed objects (trees, signs, landscaping, light poles, etc) to be located as a wayward driver may leave the roadway and need that space to recover. You can’t plant a tree within X feet of a roadway if the listed speed is over 35 MPH. Sorry for all you walkers…..
Fred, is the city truly a hostage to GDOT on these issues? Can we citizens do nothing?
Write to GDOT, our legislators, the governor?
Between the thread on CSX railroad and crossings/quiet zones and W. Howard and GDOT, we citizens have no rights or recourse ATALLLLLL ( last word said in my best Andy Taylor impersonation)!
But, if the listed speed is 35 mph, then it’s NOT OVER 35 mph, right? So does that sidewalk-recovery-zone principle apply here?
It’s a popular misconception that slower is safer. Actually, it isn’t, hence the need for the 85th percentile speed, and why the state requires the study.
If you’re concerned about safety (and not revenue) you’ll follow the engineers’ advice.
The below is from http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
Q. Isn’t slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph
This just proves the point. Because Howard is over-engineered, the average speed is consistently higher than posted. As a result, as you point out, cars traveling slower present a safety risk. But the goal of complete streets–that serve cars, peds, and bikes alike–is bringing down not the speed of the occasional individual car but the *average* speed overall.
Once everyone is driving at a consistently slower speed, safety is increased dramatically. If a pedestrian is struck at 20mph, they have a less than 10% chance of being killed. At 30mph, the chance of death is almost 50/50. At 40mph, it’s over 80%. Who’s safety are we really concerned with?
The info you cite comes from motorists.org. Clearly they’re not huge pedestrian advocates.
Speed kills. Just ask Margaret Mitchell.
Wasn’t she jaywalking when she was hit?
Or speedballin’?
Yes, she was.
She was speedballin’? Dang, MM was straight-up gangsta! I’ll have to go read GWTW again, see if I missed something.
You’re only seeing the equation through a windshield perspective. Anything above 20mph is the knee for fatality rates to go above 50%. I’m talking about pedestrians and cyclists like me and my kids.
The other road users besides steel cage drivers who already have too much catered to them.
that makes sense to me in the context of highway driving where pedestrians and cyclists are not in play. and it makes sense for a variety of reasons (not least of which being that slow drivers provoke careless fast drivers into making risky maneuvers). But W. Howard is not a highway. And I want to hear directly from the person who feels their ability to drive 5-10 mph faster across town is worth the life or limbs of another person.
Exactly, stg. Even the excerpt’s example uses an interstate, so I tend to think that’s what they were actually talking about. There’s a big divide between a safe speed on an interstate and a safe speed on a residential (or semi-residential) street, but some folks seem unable to find that line and draw it.
I say all pedestrians should arm themselves with portable spike strips! (For any humor-impaired readers, the foregoing was a joke. A joke!)
roofing nails aren’t that expensive, I don’t think. 😉
Even with the new red crosswalk at Adiar and Howard, drivers still have no regard for pedestrians trying to cross Howard. Most don’t even slow down. It takes three crossing guards to get children safely across the streets and RR tracks to get to and from school. Is there any other signal that can be installed that would get the attention of drivers to pay attention and give right of way to pedestrians?
30 mph is too low for W. Howard
This is a residential neighborhood. Thousands of people live all sides of that street. There is a bike path along it. Hundreds of young children cross that street every day for God’s sake. It should be 25 max.
Hmm.. the slower the speed the more accidents? Is that because you’re riding my bumper when I’m going the posted speed limit, so when I actually have to turn into a driveway/street, you crash into me because you’re so impatient?
Love that DOT logic..which is really an oxymoron.
Lots of good points here, but net-net is that lowering the speed limit accomplishes nothing.
If the citizens want the average speed to come down, encourage the city use traffic calming approaches similar to on Church St (this does NOT include speed bumps). (Jibes with Scott’s point that Howard is engineered for a higher speed.)
Lowering the speed limit has proven not to work. It’s popular because of simple visiblity, mis-information and because it lines government and insurance lobby coffers.
Perhaps bikes and pedestrians should find alternate routes, or we should concentrate efforts on helping create altrenate or friendly routes for them, without impeding taxpayers heading to and from work.
“Perhaps bikes and pedestrians should find alternate routes…”
I believe many of us in Decatur view it as the alternative. Perhaps it is the drivers who need an alternative if they don’t wish to obey the speed limits.
DeKalb Avenue has a 35 mph speed limit. Ponce de Leon has a 35 mph speed limit (outside Decatur). Even on Scott Boulevard the speed limit is only 40 mph.
Drive the speed limit, spend less time waiting at red lights.
Cyclists and pedestrians ARE taxpayers too.
It’s specious to trot out studies meant for motorway design into a discussion of city streetscapes in order to justify illegal and dangerous antisocial behavior.
I resent that car drivers have some imagined right to endanger my neighbor’s lives with impunity.
Slowing down enhances safety. It reduces the lethality of a collision by reducing the inertia of a heavy vehicle. It improves safety by increasing the reaction time for a driver to notice and avoid a collision. We should do everything possible to slow motor vehicle traffic down to a human scaled speed within the city limits.
“Perhaps bikes and pedestrians should find alternate routes…”
Okay, the kids trying to cross W. Howard to get back and forth to school are the offspring of taxpayers, too. Stan, please help me understand why their rights should take a back seat to “taxpayers heading to and from work.”
“Perhaps bikes and pedestrians should find alternate routes, or we should concentrate efforts on helping create alternate or friendly routes for them, without impeding taxpayers heading to and from work”
Seriously – was that a real argument/point or was it just to get a rise?
Aren’t the people walking and biking tax payers?
What about the tax payers trying to pull out of their roads onto W Howard to have to risk life and limb?
Why can’t these “tax payers who are trying to get to work” simply obey they law and keep within the speed limit and obey crosswalks?
You would think differently if you had been in a wreck due to a speeding driver, or someone you knew was hit by a speeding driver.
Part real, part rise.
The rise: I’ve successfully illustrated the point that emotion takes a back seat to logic on this.
The real: Drivers can run over a pedestrians just as easily at 30 as they can at 35 or 50.
Unless it’s intentional (i.e., they’re trying to hit you), a driver that is only speeding will not kill someone. A driver distracted or out of control, however, will. It doesn’t matter if the driver is going 30 (perhaps not speeding) or 35 mph (perhaps speeding), if you believe Scott’s stats, you’d be just as dead either way.
Our efforts would be better focused on getting drivers to pay attention (put down cell phones, not zone out on the road, don’t drink and drive, etc.) than creating revenue for the city. This is why I proposed traffic calming.
The responsibilty to obey works both ways- pedestrians and bikes need to obey signals and crosswalks as well.
Having crossing guards at the cross walks is a positive action- this increases visibility for drivers, and helps eager children remember to obey the light and cross at the crossings.
The trick is making the crossing manageable for them. Slowing the traffic won’t do this. changing the configuration or where they cross will.
Emotion takes a back seat to logic? not at all – my points were very logical. All are taxpayers and all need to obey the rules/laws…how is that not logical
The drivers know the speed limits – stick to them/enforce them.
Of course accidents happen at any speed but the impact is less for 30mph than 35, 40 etc. The issue here was drives NOT sticking to the speed limits or respecting crosswalks.
I do agree pedestrians and bikers also need to follow the rules – that wasn’t up for debate.
Now the phone use while driving is another thread and one I 100% agree with…that, I am sure, would solve MOST of these issue!
I’m thinking we need some of those old style Burma Shave signs leading up to the West Howard/Adair crosswalk:
Hey, you in the car
Driving through our town
Walkers in the crosswalk
You gotta stop, not just slow down
(Burma Shave)
Signs are a great idea!
When you drive through Decatur
Slow down and look out
For walkers and bikers
It’s safety we tout!
This isn’t the highway
Passing through our town,
So watch and be careful
And slow the heck down!
Decatur is friendly,
A great place to kick it.
But drive the speed limit
Or you’ll get a ticket!
Daytime or nighttime
You might not see a cop.
But if someone’s in the crosswalk,
You are required to STOP!
This would be a perfect mini-Dr. Seuss booklet! It would also make an awesome sign to put up beside the main entrances into Decatur. I move you submit it to the City Commission!
Here’s one:
If driving slow sticks in your craw
Reflect on Newton’s second law
Did you make this up SMG? It’s great!
The simple fact is that speed limits do little if anything to affect driver behavior. Laws don’t change behavior unless people choose to obey them.
Anyone that has driven on the connector or Freedom Parkway knows this. People drive the speed they’re comfortable, not the posted speed. Hence the 85% rule that started this discussion.
No matter how “logical” it is to obey the law, speed limit laws are not effective in controlling driver behavior.
We can change the speed limit to whatever we want on Howard. If we decide we truly want to slow traffic on Howard, however, we need to change the street itself.
There are two basic tenants of the discussion here:
1) slower streets are safer streets
2) lower speed limits slow traffic.
Both are worthy of discussion, and we can agree to disagree on the first one, but the second one has proven wrong over and over.
Therefore, making the argument the street is safer when the speed limit is lowered is not logical.
Nancy, I agree with the Burma Shave signs.
Always fascinating to me how a Republican-run state that cries “states’ rights” over matters such as gun laws and health-care reform is so adamantly opposed to home rule for its localities (except of course when it comes to gutting the Democratic power base by allowing Republican-majority enclaves to cleave off from Fulton and DeKalb into budget-busting separate cities).
Now, can someone figure out who the hell is responsible for Commerce Drive so we can do something about lowering the speed limit on that death-trap? The city claims it’s the state. The state points to the city.
It may depend on what section of Commerce Drive you’re talking about. East of Clairemont, it’s State Route 155, which make it State jurisdiction. West of Clairemont, it’s a City street.
[sigh]
I have to weigh in on this.
I don’t agree with Stan’s point about “It’s a popular misconception that slower is safer. Actually, it isn’t, hence the need for the 85th percentile speed, and why the state requires the study.” Up until the advent of interstate development after World War 2, streets were designed in context with the surrounding area and took into account pedestrians, streetcars, cyclists, etc.
As the 1950’s progressed and highway engineers began connecting local areas to interstates and started to design the streets more for vehicles, they started to over-engineer the street & allowing for higher speeds. They basically took interstate designs (all about speed) and began adopting those principles to local connector roads – thus the rise in wide, gently curved, great visibility roads (no trees) like Scott Blvd., etc. Likewise the same sort of treatment for road “enhancements” like when Church street was widened and the same for Commerce. Think of any road widening project since the 1950’s – Interstate design principles guided the reconstruction of these local roads – to the benefit of faster moving traffic & to the detriment of pedestrians and other users.
If you read through the history of the interstate, road design since the 1950’s, and the development of the traffic engineering manuals currently in use, you’ll see this shift.
Now attitudes are beginning to move the other way. Cities and densely populated areas are asking for road design standards that reflect the area. If you’re designing a walkable community, the roadway itself should reflect & enhance this. In fact, a number of cities including Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and New York are pushing back against the DOT and beginning to demand changes in the traffic manuals that would allow them to design their city streets more for cyclists and pedestrians. These cities and others recently launched a Cities for Cycling program aimed at doing just this – creating best practices and design guidelines for creating streets that accomodate all users & not just vehicles.
“Complete Streets” and “context sensitive design” are concepts that reflect these changing attitudes about the function of a street and its purpose in transportation. And it’s starting to change from the top – U. S. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, announced this past Monday a major policy shift for the DOT – here’s a quote from the Baltimore Sun:
Quote: On Monday, LaHood announced what could be — if it is backed with actual dollars-and-cents policy — a sea change from the auto-centric bias that has prevailed in federal transportation policy since World War II.
“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” he said. “We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”
As part of this policy, LaHood said, the federal government will urge state departments of transportation to “treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.” End quote.
Sec. LaHood’s policy statement is interesting reading for those of you who want to know more about these shifts in attitude towards the purpose of transportation. It’s not about moving cars, it’s about moving people.
For this and many other reasons, LaHood may be the smartest member of the Cabinet, even if he is a Republican.
He’s not an ideologue.
Fred just validated my point, and we’re saying essentially the same thing: the road is designed for a higher speed limit, thus folks are going to drive on it as designed.
i.e., Lowering the speed limit accomplishes nothing for the citizens.
Another Rick just summed it up; narrow it if you want it slower.
With regard to the 85th percentile speed, the crux of Fred and others’ argument is that it doesn’t factor in the impact on pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.
The more empassioned arguments have said that “bicyclists and pedestrians have rights too.”
Keep in mind that the motorists, though percieved as less vulnerable here, have the same rights . All citizens on bike, car, foot, train, etc., need efficient ways to get from Decatur to downtown- as Fred’s citation said “treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.”
Equals, not above or instead of. License plates and tag fees for bikes, anyone? I think it’s absurd, but let’s think about what these statement could truly mean.
It’s not an easy path forward. It is going to take change. But it certainly won’t be fixed (or even helped) overnight with speed limit signs, stop light cameras, speed bumps or lasers.
I have lived with 2 city blocks of W. Howard for nearly 30 years. Speeds are way too fast, especially when suburban maniacs fly by in their SUV on their way to who knows where in Gwinnett to downtown ATL. The road should be narrowed to 2 lanes with trees!
Stan,
We’re not saying the same thing here. My point is roadway design since the 1950’s has favored the automobile over other modes. The engineers designed the roads to be safer for drivers – wide lanes, wide turning radii, “vehicle recovery zones” and so on. The intent was to protect drivers from accidents, the unintended consequence was higher vehicle speeds. Folks started driving faster because the road design allowed them to do so.
It would be great if we could traffic calm our major streets, but guess what – the GDOT won’t let you touch a state road without getting their approval (they turned the City down on the request to lower the speed and still be able to run radar). Why? Because the 85% figure is 44 MPH, which is within limits for a 35 mph zone. That’s just stupid.
The GDOT is still focused on moving as many vehicles as quickly as possible with as few interuptions as possible (read pedestrians and cyclists) from one point to another. To them, roads like S. Candler exist in a realm that ignores local context. It as if it was laid out in farmland in rural Georgia with only the cows for company. They make very little effort to allow a community to deal with a street set-up like this once it enters the city limits.
To my mind, that sort of thinking is way out of date.
So the only means the city has to enforce the speed limit is enforcement measures like radar.
Thanks for the S. Candler shout-out, Fred. My home faces S. Candler and I live painfully close to the area now being widened near Shoal Creek. I attended an open house at Decatur High many years ago and went on record in opposition to the widening. Basically, it was lost breath. ‘Thanks for your input,’ was about the extent of it. I was told the widening was necessary as a result of numerous wrecks caused by drivers turning left on Midway Road. In my nearly ten years in this home, I’ve never seen or heard of a single wreck.
The widening is really the most inane maneuver. At the top the hill, near Pharr, S. Candler is two-lane. The street widens to three-lanes. And then reverts back to two-lane just past the bridge. This is all within in around a .10 of mile. Drivers headed south on S. Candler treat the 3-lane section as a fast pass area, as though this residential street is a mountain highway and they desperately need to get behind a slow-moving semi-truck. The construction has already defaced the profile of the street. Lovely old trees uprooted. Front yards reduced to the size of postage stamps.
As a result of my years on this street, I am perhaps the calmest, slowest-moving driver I know. When taking surface streets, I always remember that just beyond that sidewalk is a family in a home. And that street is more theirs than mine.
“So the only means the city has to enforce the speed limit is enforcement measures like radar.”
Actually, no, the city could invest in alternate routes for non-motorized transportation that are not on the state’s property or that don’t violate the DOT’s engineering principles. Or work with the legislature and DOT to change the state’s mind on “thinking that is out of date.”
But, tickets are easier. What part of the city budget is that Fred? Is it part of the nearly 5% of the budget that is “penalties, fines and forfeitures?”
Since the purpose, start point and destinations for nonmotorized transportation are exactly the same as that for motorized transportation. It makes no sense (even if it were physically possible) to build seperate but equal facilities that you describe. Secondly, how would the construction of such a project result in lowered driving speeds?
Constructive idea: If the city has no influence over the road itself, is there any way to make parking on these roads legal? Or is it already?
If homeowners on these streets left their cars parked on either side of the street, it may have a traffic calming effect. Seems to work in the Great Lakes area, though I realize the road design is totally different there.
At Monday’s Commissioners Meeting, Fred shared more info from his recent DC trip. Other cities are trying some really cool things. Definitely worthy of a DM post.
LOVE! y’all’s Burma Shave signs! Let’s put ’em up all over Decatur!
*Definitely should have mentioned that this was a Fred trip. NOT a junket!