As we reported back in January, the 2014 Citizen Survey showed that a majority of Decatur residents voiced their approval of a 25 MPH city-wide speed limit for residential roads. We followed up with the city who told us they were still working through the many questions associated with the project.
At last night’s meeting, the commission listened as residents along Harold Byrd Drive and Maedris Drive in the Westchester neighborhood submitted a petition for traffic calming measures along their streets (four-way light, speed humps, etc), to deal with cut-through traffic from Scott Boulevard and Clairemont.
They then listened as numerous Decatur Heights residents took the podium and asked that the city commission take action on the 25 mph residential speed zone petition for Sycamore Drive the entire Decatur Heights neighborhood, which was accepted by the commission back in 2011, and also address other lingering speed-related issues in the neighborhood.
Later in the meeting, Asst. City Manager David Junger described to the commissioners the many difficulties involved of lowering the speed limit on any residential street in Decatur, let alone across the entire city.
Decatur Heights residents along Sycamore Drive have also separately pursued a 25 MPH Residential Zone speed limit along their stretch on road north of Ponce. So far, they’ve achieved a 30MPH Residential Zone designation. However, the requested 25 MPH hasn’t been accommodated, because of the method used by the Georgia Department of Transportation to determine speed limits. A new speed study request is in the queue.
As is common in many states, GDOT will review speed study results and then determine the speed limited based on how fast folks in the 85th percentile drive. So, they’re looking for the magic number where 15% drive faster and 85% drive slower. That then becomes the speed limit for that street. (If you’ve been following this site for a few years, you may recall we discussed this rule back when GDOT rejected the city’s lowering of West Howard Ave speed limit from 35 to 30 mph) This rule is a major hurdle in Decatur’s case for city-wide 25 mph limit because, according to Mr. Junger, the 85th percentile in Decatur traffic studies always comes out higher than 25 mph.
As we have previously reported, the city was proposing a pilot project with GDOT where they would look to lower the speed limit under GDOT’s recent “Complete Streets” initiative. Mr. Junger said in the meeting that they were considering using Sycamore Drive Decatur Heights as the test case, if they were given the go ahead on this plan. However, Mr. Junger said that the city’s contact at GDOT on this project has moved on, so now the discussions will need to start over.
So that’s where we are right now. But look forward to discussing speed limits again in 2 weeks time, as City Manager Peggy Merriss said that they’ll be presenting three speed studies that the city has recently completed at the next meeting.
So if I understand this correctly, speeders are being rewarded indirectly for speeding. The faster you drive, the higher you push the average and the higher the speed limit becomes. This seems an odd way of, “limiting” speeds. Can I get a witness?
The 85th percentile is not the average.
Yep. That’s exactly how it works. That’s why it’s necessary to make physical changes to the street, severe enough that, once completed, the design speed becomes equal with the desired speed. Right now we have plenty of streets that are designed, engineering-wise, for 30, 35, even 40 mph, yet we want people to slow down.
This doesn’t always require expensive infrastructure. A number of years ago, residents of Davis Street south of ASC strategically parked two large cars across the street from each other so that the resulting space between them was (I think) 10 feet, the minimum legally allowed for fire truck clearance. The result is that the street became a negotiated yield between traffic headed in opposite directions and, at least for a while, speeds came down.
Another way to look at it is to look at 85N on Saturday mornings. The speed limit (55/65) is not observed by the flow of traffic because it is safe to use the road at a higher speed. Going the speed limit often ‘feels’ like you are going too slow.
The problem with Sycamore, especially, is that purely from an engineering standpoint (in other words, not taking into account the residential nature of the street), it’s perfectly safe to go 35 or even 40 on the road as constructed since it is effectively 2.5/3 lanes wide. If we really want to bring speeds down (as opposed to just writing more traffic tickets), you need to re-engineer the road so the perceived safe speed for a driver more closely matches the desired speed of traffic.
What I don’t get is why the desired speed should be different from an observed speed that’s been proven safe. That is, unless someone can show that the current situation on Sycamore has resulted in enough accidents to warrant a significant reduction in speed. I’m not aware of anything like that.
“What I don’t get is why the desired speed should be different from an observed speed that’s been proven safe”
One reason is that the speed you say is proven safe has been in effect mostly over a period of time when there were fewer cyclists and pedestrians than now, and that going forward that speed may not be desirable, especially when many of us want to encourage even more cycling and walking and less driving in urbanizing areas.
If there was ever a road calling out in the wilderness for a protected bike lane, Sycamore is it. You would give up the on-street parking, but the road would ‘feel’ like a 25 mph residential street.
as an experienced cyclist, i strongly disagree. sycamore is straight, flattish, and wide. i always feel perfectly safe riding on that road. cars can see you well in advance and the road is wide enough for them to pass you safely. if you’re paying attention and looking back every now and then, you can see the cars coming from far away.
For the record, I was thinking of the protected bike lane as a functional way of reducing the width of the road available to vehicles, not because the road is not currently unsafe for bikes (although I imagine it would still be safer than currently).
B/c the stopping distance for a car goes up exponentially as speeds increase. Parents aren’t necessarily worried about the number of accidents, especially those of the car/car variety. They are afraid of the tragic one, especially when measures can be taken to reduce the risks posed by unsafe and/or distracted drivers.
“Parents aren’t necessarily worried about the number of accidents, especially those of the car/car variety. They are afraid of the tragic one, especially when measures can be taken to reduce the risks posed by unsafe and/or distracted drivers.”
Good point. Now get ready to be mocked for saying “think of the children” by those who think a more important concern is their “freedom” to speed with a phone shoved in their ear.
A tragic accident could also occur at 25mph. Any speed limit is an attempt to balance risk with expediency. At best, a limit of 25 would be expected to reduce — not eliminate — the occurrence of tragic accidents over time. Since no one seems to be aware of a tragic accident on Sycamore to begin with, this effort appears to be based on reducing an already extremely small risk to a risk that is marginally smaller by some unknown amount. Stated only somewhat differently, this is far more emotional than rational. I think it’s a bad way to make policy.
Speeding and cell phones are red herrings. The topic is what the limit should be.
As for the accident rate being low to non-existent because people walked and cycled less way back when, I have no idea what you are basing that on. I personally have cycled Sycamore hundreds of times.
I see far more people walking (especially children) and cycling on Sycamore than there were 20, even ten years ago.
Impossible. We all know that no one will walk or cycle unless a full-on complete streets retrofit is fully implemented.
Odds of dying when getting hit by a car:
At 20 mph = 5%
At 30 mph = 45%
At 40 mph = 85%
DEM, I agree with you the issue is all about weighing risk against expediency. But there is more than one dimension of risk. There’s the risk of getting hit by a car; the risk of suffering a disabling injury as a result of the collision; and the risk of dying. Those all vary in direct relation to the speed of the vehicle. Also, the risk is different now than it was when the road was built in that there is a higher likelihood of any given driver, at any given moment, being distracted because of smart phone use. These are all facts, not feelings.
Looking at the expediency side of the equation, we are evidently seeing a shift in our collective values and priorities. This happens from time to time and winds up being reflected in policy and law. Specifically, more of us are placing less intrinsic value on enabling motorists to get from point A to point B as fast as they can; and more value on being able to move around safely in ways other than by automobile. At any rate, this is how we regulate ourselves, by continually examining our risk/benefit equations and adjusting them as best we can.
I also hear, in this debate, a case being made that it’s not acceptable to wait until “enough” dire accidents have occurred to satisfy some arbitrary standard for defining hazardous conditions, and instead we should take measures to enhance safety before there’s a tragic loss of life or limb. Perhaps that is where you are hearing “too much emotion,” whereas to me it’s the most rational thing in the world.
Fair enough, but the arbitrary standard of hazardous conditions is not mine, since I am not the one defining a road with zero pedestrian/cyclist accidents (at least as far as anyone here appears to know) as hazardous. If the case for reducing the limit is, “maybe we can make it even safer than zero accidents” then so be it. In my view that reflects an unhealthy level of risk aversion.
I don’t see it as an unhealthy risk aversion; the trade-off isn’t no cars, but slowing cars down, a minor inconvenience.
I think the number of accidents that have already occurred is the wrong metric to use in defining hazardous conditions. And I think “hazardous conditions” is an incomplete criterion to use in allocating access to the ROW. It should not just be a matter of how safe people have been so far; it’s also appropriate to consider how safe people feel when they are using the street. When common sense, firsthand experience, and statistical data all indicate that a serious accident is more likely now than it used to be–regardless of whether or not one has occurred yet–then it’s rational to adjust policy accordingly.
Ditto. When you’re trying to walk with kids on Candler or Scott, it’s not much comfort that there haven’t been any tragic accidents yet.
DEM, sincere questions for you:
What are the posted speed limits on the residential streets in Avondale Estates? (I honestly don’t know, but thought I recalled the ones I’ve been on as being 25MPH.) Would you say the speed limit on your street (a) enhances (b) detracts from or (c) has no impact at all on your family’s quality of life?
If not the neighbors in the neighborhood, who do you want to have the say on what’s the most appropriate speed limit for residential streets?
-and-
If (When!) Sycamore Drive becomes a 25MPH Residential Zone Speed Limit street, will it cause you to seek out a different route?
I don’t know what the speed limits are in AE, to be honest with you. Whatever the current limit is, I would say it’s had no impact on QOL. On my street there was a push by some residents for traffic calming measures, which have yet to be implemented. As part of that process, the City did a sort of study of how fast cars were really going, and found that — despite the eyewitness testimony of rampant speeding — virtually all of the traffic was operating within an acceptable range of speed.
I haven’t been riding nearly as much as I used to. Reducing the speed limit to 25 would make no difference to my decision to take or not take Sycamore. Well, except that on parts of Sycamore I have often exceeded 25 MPH on my bike. I would not want to get a speeding ticket. I can’t recall the last time I drove down Sycamore. It’s rare, though it used to be quite frequent.
Agreed, Scott. But even at modest costs, physical changes require the expenditure of revenue while lowering the speed limit potentially increases revenue. Changing the speed limit is the easy but not necessarily effective choice.
Yes! Exactly what I was thinking! Bizarre.
So does my rationale still apply? i.e. The faster people are recorded driving, the higher the 85th percentile becomes?
Yes and no. If EVERYONE drives faster, yes. But if a relatively small number of people drive very fast, it would drive up the average speed while having no effect on the 85th percentile speed, all else equal.
Or put another way, let’s discount both measurement and a long history of reason-based speed limit setting, and instead set them based on gut-feeling of an outspoken minority.
Guess what? The end result will be that now more than 15% of drivers will drive faster than the speed limit, likely the same speed they drove down the same streets before, frustration will be higher among both drivers and the 25mph’ers, who won’t understand why their unreasonable, arbitrary new speed limit didn’t magically make people drive slower.
The first sentence of the piece here would seem to indicate it’s an outspoken majority.
Ok, thanks for the clarifications. Sounds like their are plenty of, “gut feelings” surrounding both sides of this issue.
A recent discussion in Winnona Park has people wondering if they should give up part of the their front yard for new sidewalks. The answer is “no” if we go with Scott’s “win-win” solution above. Keep your yard and shrink the street by adding sidewalks in the current right-of-way. Cars still get through at a (slightly) reduced speed and the sidewalk network is expanded.
Now that sounds like a plan. Wouldn’t it also save some money?
IMHO, sidewalks are better for pedestrians. Pedestrians are nearly 100% safe on sidewalks. Walking in the road around parked cars or bump outs is not as safe.
Agreed – I may have been unclear. I’m saying the best solution may be to add sidewalks AND shrink the street (by adding a sidewalk in the right of way, rather than in people’s yards).
Or, in other other words, adding sidewalks on the asphalt side of the curb rather than the grass side.
In lieu of a thousand words: tinyurl (dot) com/q9a95xr
So you want to slow down cars? Close both major railroad crossings, but forget to hire a traffic cop to direct the traffic at the open railroad crossings. Cars will crawl along at 5 mph tops. Why did I choose to leave for the office at prime time (8:15 am) this morning?
Forget about turning left on Commerce off of College (under the rr bridge) during rush hour. Try this:
College Ave east to S Columbia (before the light).
Right on S Columbia.
Left on Commerce.
Thank me later.
I wasn’t even crossing the tracks, just trying to get to Avondale and beyond…It also took a good 15 minutes to turn right onto College (due to the left-turners ahead of me). I’ll wait a half hour tomorrow to avoid the gridlock.
As others have noted, Sycamore has lots of pedestrians, runners, cyclists. As someone else noted, visually it looks like you can safely drive 35-40 MPH. This is an illusion, and it is exactly why in addition to a 25 MPH speed limit, we need traffic calming on Sycamore Drive.
PS what = “enough accidents?” My daughter and I came darn close to bring hit by a car that lost control on Sycamore Drive last year. The accident damaged several cars, took out a fence and thankfully the spiraling car stopped a bit short of us, but halfway across a lawn…and a couple of houses down from where it started?
Do we have to wait for the next person to be less lucky and get hurt/killed before we have “enough accidents” to take action? Why not learn from close calls?
Great work today, Westchester parents, with your slow-down rally on Westchester Drive! Nice flyer and great reminder that you know who we are, those of us who drive that route, and you notice our speed. If you could do a similar rally every six months, I’ll bet you’ll have reduced speeds substantially. Those who just need reminding will slow down and those who insist on speeding will stick to Scott and Clairemont to avoid the prying eyes of the locals, the police car, and the rally delay.