Commission Set To Lower Decatur Heights Speed Limit to 25 MPH For Pilot Project

31 thoughts on “Commission Set To Lower Decatur Heights Speed Limit to 25 MPH For Pilot Project”

1. 
   

2. What is completely left out of this is that by designating an area a “Residential District Speed Zone,” it allows Decatur Police to ticket for going 1mph over the limit. Otherwise, they have to allow 10mph over the limit. This fact is conspicuously absent from the official communications about this law, and likely was not included in the survey.

   35 mph in what should be a 25 is a big delta, but I rarely see enforcement on truly residential streets – enforcement is more frequent on major thoroughfares like Sycamore or Scott which already have sidewalks and are built for faster speeds. i.e., the impact on safety is less.

   Net-net, this is less likely about safety and more about revenue. The city budget has a target of $900,000 in revenue from fines. Remember the stop light camera (nstalled to increase safety) on Scott & Clairemont that was deactivated when it didn’t make enough money to earn its keep?

   1. The people who live around Sycamore have wanted lower speeds on that street for a long time. If the city has an ulterior motive for doing what the residents have been requesting for years, then it’s a win-win. 😉 But this wouldn’t be happening if the residents who live there hadn’t requested it.
      If the city just wants to make some revenue, the city wouldn’t need to go through the hassle of changing speed limits in this neighborhood–the entire police force could just camp out on Scott Blvd and hand out tickets all day long.

   2. Stan, for your consideration:

      While you’re correct about the enhanced enforcement, the ordinance is to cover both radar eligible and non eligible streets receiving the Residential District Speed Zone designation.

      DPD can only issue speeding tickets on streets approved by GDOT as having met criteria for running radar. DPD doesn’t ticket at 1 mile over (not even for Residential District Speed Zone streets) so as to allow for odometer discrepancies.

      The listed streets on tonight’s agenda aren’t radar eligible, but still need to be accounted for. Almost all drivers already drive 25MPH on these streets; however, the Residential Zone designation will serve as fair warning that, if need be, DPD can cite a driver for traveling too fast for conditions. (Most likely, to a neighbor. It seems there’s always going to be an end-of-the-street resident who likes to gun it down the stretch, disregarding other folks’ safety.)

      Sycamore Drive, Lockwood Terrace, and Ridgeland Avenue are Decatur Heights’ three radar eligible streets and will come before the City Commission separately– hopefully very soon.

      True, Sycamore Dr is a popular cut-through street. However, it wasn’t built to serve as a major thoroughfare. As for buffer, there’s a small curb strip with 4′ sidewalk, then it’s right into the short front yards of the homes and businesses.

      For Decatur Heights, becoming a Residential District Speed Zone is a neighbors’ driven initiative (all 575 residences and the 3 businesses had a say during the petition process). It was undertaken at the recommendation of Assistant City Manager David Junger as the best way to meet our goal for a safer, more pedestrian and cyclist friendly neighborhood. What we’re after is for drivers to pay attention when traveling through. Ideally, folks will gladly respect the designation, and there won’t be a need for any tickets to be issued.

      (I’m the coordinator for speed reduction efforts in Decatur Heights. )

      1. Thanks for the thoughtful response – I hope you meet your goal. As I’m sure you’re well aware, traffic calming measures (e.g., narrowing Sycamore) will likely be more effective at slowing traffic than lowering the speed limit. (Church street in front of the pool is a great example of this. Another: ever try driving in Virginia Highlands with cars parked on both sides?) People are much more attentive when they feel like conditions require it. Signs rarely accomplish the goal.

         And it doesn’t surprise me that the city managers would recommend this over other options – it’s inexpensive and revenue positive! 🙂

         I’m fearful that the city will assume that’s what is wanted/”good” for Decatur Heights should apply everywhere. A blanket 25 mph throughout the city would be overkill, IMO.

      2. It’s not clear that these roads are unsafe, nor that lowering the posted limit will marginally improve safety. While all residences might have had a say during the petition process, the petition process was decidedly slanted in favor of reducing the speed limit.

         As long as the road is in poor repair, we’re all somewhat safer, but after the gas lines are filled, maybe we’ll get a reprieve from that particular calamity.

         1. +1

         2. Below is the exact petition wording– not just a “slower speeds are nice” petition. It was also stated when the petition was presented that the special designation 25MPH would mean exactly that and that neighbors are often the ones who end up getting a ticket. I feel very good about how the petition process was conducted.

            Petition for 25 MPH Residential Speed Zone Designation for Decatur Heights:

            We, the undersigned, request to have Decatur Heights designated as a 25 MPH Residential Speed Zone. We are aware that the 25 MPH Speed Limit will be strictly enforced. We agree that it will help to reduce the traffic & safety concerns associated with being an often used cut through neighborhood. It will provide Decatur Heights with the 25 MPH Residential Speed Zone coverage of other walkable Decatur neighborhoods, and it will establish one speed limit within Decatur Heights. [We now have a 35 MPH Speed Limit on Sycamore Dr., and a 25 MPH Speed Limit on Ridgeland Ave and Forkner Dr. We do not have Speed Limit signs on Lockwood Ter., Pinehurst St., and other streets. By default, they are 30 MPH Speed Limit for enforcement purposes.] Lowering the speed limit will also allow for continuation of the 25 MPH Speed Limit of Sycamore St. across E. Ponce de Leon Ave.

         3. Note: (Since the petition) Sycamore Dr is now a posted 30MPH Residential and radar enforceable. The City, DHNA, and GDOT are continuing to work towards the 25MPH Residential. GDOT District 7 Engineer Patrick Allen agrees that the wider street invites higher speeds and that some streetscaping or other physical traffic calming will be needed to succeed in reducing drivers’ speed for the safety of all.

            1. Hence my point that turning the street into a speed trap for the city doesn’t solve much.

               1. ?? It’s not an either/or.

                  Sycamore Dr isn’t a speed trap, nor is it on the way to becoming one. If that’s a major concern for you, N. Arcadia/DeKalb Industrial and Church St are very good alternatives.

                  1. …as long as the city doesn’t use this “pilot program” as a way to justify lowering the limit on those streets as well.

                     1. The plan is to make ALL roads 25 mph! The government wants to change the law from using science~ which, I believe, it already manages to get around~ to do this on state {ruled} roads, too. Instead of making the roads safer for the speeds that drivers are going, the government wants to make the roads less safe & lower the speed limit. It is privatizing in that speed bumps are voted on by only people on individual streets~ not the public at large who travel on the roads. The city {& county} fall victim to hysterical stories of crazed drivers~ possibly, if even partially true, incited by using the wrong methods of design, in the first place. Accidents will go down by making the roads, through ways, more dangerous & lowering the limit that is already being broken?! That is pure dementia.

                        This coddling by the nanny state, supported by people frightened easily, & often without true reason, is only leading to a people who cannot think for themselves, cannot learn from their mistakes & against logical reason. Why are there drivers test? To see if people are able to drive, know the rules, are capable physically, i.e., vision. Yet, the whole concept of ‘complete streets’ is that toddlers should be able to play in the street with no regard, no sense.

                        Some survey says people will ‘feel safer’. Of course, responding to misleading surveys designed for a result… ‘If cars are not breaking the law of a newer, lower speed limit, would you feel safer?’ Yes, we all feel safer in the imaginary world of no crime.

                        Then, there is the fact that the speed limits & speed bumps & ill designed & not fixed roads have failed for decades to lower the speed driven by people in cars. That follow up studies are never made. People avoid these new ‘private’ roads that they still have to pay for. Let people pay for their private roads out of their own pocket, if that is to be the way!

                        The ruse is that these poorly designed roads are safer for anyone is false. Putting money into making the main roads safer & designed for their use would avoid the call for these obscene methods. People would not be cutting through side streets. Calling for all streets to be at such an absurd low speed would not exist if there was not this, as well as this disease of speed bumps pitting neighbor against neighbor. & to claim that this makes the roads bike friendly is only in the imagination of those who do not really ride bikes.

                        The county government said two years ago that they do not take into account bicycles in their designs. There has been no change in their design.

                        Why not call for good design instead of this monstrosity without a head or a heart?

                     2. At some point you two guys will actually read the citywide speed limit proposal, right? :0)
                        http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4365

                        And to learn about DeKalb’s Medline LCI plan for the nearby area which will guide creating a healthy and safe place for pedestrians and cyclists:
                        https://sites.google.com/site/medlinelcistudy/

                        1. I’ve read the proposal several times, and even taken the time to provide feedback and attend the public forum on the topic held in 2013. This document is biased, and several of the flaws have been pointed out to the city multiple times. They simply don’t want to update the document, as it would weaken their case (despite recommendations it be taken down from the website until it could be at minimum made accurate.)

                           For example, this statement, from page 5 of the study, is at best misleading, and is likely completely false:

                           “As driving speed increases, so does the likelihood of a collision.”

                           The very study cited in the proposal actually says:

                           “Speed is also linked to the probability of being in a crash, although the evidence is not as compelling because crashes are complex events that seldom can be attributed to a single factor.”

                           There are flaws in the data analysis. The maps that show accidents and citations don’t consider the traffic volume on these streets and normalize for accidents per miles driven or for traffic volume. This is a more accurate depiction of the relative likelihood of an accident. Of course there are more accidents and citations on the 35mph roads, they have the most traffic volume!! (Not to mention likely more enforcement.)

                           If I used their methodology, I could draw a conclusion that New York City is unhealthy because more heart attacks happen there than other US cities. (Which, as you’d likely agree, is absurd because their population is higher.)

                           1. Stan, we’re on the same page that any proposal the City puts forth must be both compelling and accurate. I’m glad to know you’ve taken an active interest in what’s being proposed and are providing a critical eye. (You’ll be very pleased to know that I likewise challenged the City’s pilot project proposal to ensure it met that criteria before bringing it to the DHNA Board. Unfortunately, there’s still a glaring error in it that the City wouldn’t fix, so we also share that exasperation.)

                              My question to you: Do you see enough good in the overall goal of wanting a community where walking, biking and transit are valued– not more than driving, but equally– and efforts are made to make our streets and sidewalks real options, including ADA accessible? If so, what would you want to see added to the citywide proposal?

                           2. Deanne, the site won’t let me reply directly to your comment, but here goes. Yes, I’m a proponent of making the city more “walkable” and “bikable.” The speed limit proposal doesn’t not accomplish this goal. I don’t agree that lower speed = more walkable or more bikable.

                              For argument’s sake, even if I thought that people driving slower helps, I don’t agree with any proposal that tries to regulate this by criminalizing what would otherwise be safe driving. If there was genuine interest in slowing traffic, the city would focus its efforts on modifying the roads to encourage slower driving by removing lanes, adding parking on the sides of the street, etc.

                              An acceptable compromise might be to establish 25mph limits on the streets that are truly residential, stop pursuing additional “loopholes” to the Georgia Speed Trap law, and leave the current limits in place on streets like Ponce, Clairmont, Church, and Scott that are engineered to safely handle faster traffic. If there is sufficient reason to slow traffic on these streets, pursue narrowing them by re-purposing existing space for bike paths. This could be funded by eliminating the (now un-needed) dedicated traffic patrol established in 2009.

                  2. Exactly Deanne! I’ve been told that it’s impossible for law enforcement to check speeds on Church Street, between N. Decatur and the square due to the curves in the road. In the quiet of the morning, I can hear the car tires moan as they grip the curve heading down to the light at Medlock/Forkner. So y’all come on over to the Church Street side, and go as fast as you care to go!

                     1. Aw now… not trying to push traffic over your way, K.C.S.! It’s just that Stan seems worried that folks might not can manage to focus on safe driving without accidentally creeping up to 8 MPH over the speed limit while doing it. Gotta give ’em alternatives for their peace of mind. :0)

                        And don’t throw up your hands on Church Street– call in the concern! DPD goes out and evaluates every complaint within 7 days and during the time frame cited. Even if they can’t write speeding tickets until 11MPH over, there’s still the options of reckless driving or too fast for conditions if folks are going so fast their tires are rebelling on the curves.

         4. +1 Chad. Usually these pushes to reduce speed limits are based more on subjective feeling than on any objective evaluation of safety.

   3. Is $900K unreasonable? All estimated income has to be budgeted. The fact that the city has a budgeted income for it does not mean they seek it as a huge revenue source, but maybe it is a good faith estimate based on experience.

      At $150 per fine (my own ballpark estimate, maybe low), that amounts to $900K/150/365 = 16.3 tickets per day. That does not sound like a lot to me. Round the clock, that is one ticket every 1.5 hours issued. And that is not speeding tickets, but all traffic tickets (driving unregistered car, broken lights, etc).

      It seems like a reasonable estimate to me, and not an attempt to maximize ticket revenue.

      1. I have less issue with the “reasonableness” of the estimate, and more of an issue with the inherent conflict of interest in having what is effectively a “quota” for fines. It invites the city to misuse the police force to make the budget, and encourages our city court system to be part of it.

         Ideally, they’d not budget for this and send the money from fines to the City Schools of Decatur to remove the conflict of interest.

         In reality, I think our city leaders are much more above-board than this, but the appearance of or ability to create a conflict is a slippery slope. I could see a day when the limits in the whole city are 25mph and “aggressively enforced,” with this budgetary line item “coincidentally” increasing each year.

         1. Simple reality is that when you budget for a certain revenue stream, the goal is to hit the budget. And that is especially so when the revenue stream is within the control of the responsible entity, as traffic tickets are within the control of the police.

4. This is a continuing part of an authoritarian trend that makes public streets private {by limited vote}. Rather than any attempt at implementing good design~ which will take money & require land. It is pushed off on others. And do not think it will stop here. This is not a ‘test pilot’. This is bowing down to a vocal minority using safety as a guise to manipulate to their way. It is a faction using the government, yet, the signs will say, ‘Supported by the community’. It is not. I, personally, strongly oppose this authoritarian movement.

   1. “It is a faction using the government, yet, the signs will say, ‘Supported by the community’. It is not. I, personally, strongly oppose this authoritarian movement.”

      ” In the 2014 Citizen Survey, a majority of Decatur residents showed support for a 25mph speed limit on residential streets around the city.”

      Read the pie chart. 67% of those polled support city-wide 25 mph limits.

      1. “Supported by the community” comment is misleading, IMO. Likely “most Decatur roadways” already are 25mph. Consequently, most are in favor of the limit being 25mph on most of the roads (i.e., no change).

         But, given more context on where this was going, people’s answers would be a lot different. e.g., “Do you support a proposal for 25mph and aggressive enforcement on frequently traveled thoroughfares?”, “Are you in favor of the city handing out speeding tickets for 26 mph?”

         1. “Likely “most Decatur roadways” already are 25mph. Consequently, most are in favor of the limit being 25mph on most of the roads (i.e., no change).”

            I don’t think that’s the case: Look at this map: http://www.decaturmetro.com/2015/01/14/2014-survey-over-half-of-decatur-residents-support-25-mph-city-wide-speed-limit/. The gray roads are 30 mph by default.

            “But, given more context on where this was going, people’s answers would be a lot different. e.g., “Do you support a proposal for 25mph and aggressive enforcement on frequently traveled thoroughfares?”, “Are you in favor of the city handing out speeding tickets for 26 mph?””

            But we don’t know that either scenario is where this is going. The city could ticket people for going 26 mph, but we don’t know that they will. We don’t know how aggressive the enforcement is, but I haven’t heard about it being particularly aggressive in the past; usually I hear the opposite.

            One of the big problems for those roads with a 35 mph speed limit is that the DPD’s hands are tied by the Georgia speed trap law–they can’t issue tickets unless someone is going 10 mph over. So 44 mph on Candler, S. Columbia, Commerce, College, Clairemont, half of Oakview is okay as long as the state patrol isn’t around. The speed limits on these roads should be reduced at least to 30 mph to allow reasonable enforcement of the speeding laws.

            1. Ah! Thank you for the map. It’s hard to quickly assess, but it looks like the majority of the roadways are currently either 25mph or “not posted.”

               The proposed map confirms my fear – asking folks to go 25mph on Clairemont or Church (both major thoroughfares in/out of the city) is unreasonable and unnecessary. These roads are built to be navigated safely at their current speed limits. i.e., until they’re 2-lane, people are going to drive 30+ mph no matter what the signs say.

               I suspect the speed trap law exists to prevent the abuse I’m concerned about. If you’re going 10mph over, you may deserve a ticket. If you’re 1-8 mph over because you’re focused on safe driving (and not staring at a speedometer to keep your speed artificially low on a road that’s not conducive to it), then carry on.

               Once the city is given the rope to aggressively write tickets, it will be hard to take it back when it is abused.

   2. However one might feel about this particular initiative, the premise is that a street that feels safer will become more accessible to more types of people — people on foot and on bikes, for example. Can you elaborate on how making something more accommodating to more segments of the community equates to privatizing? My take would be the opposite: the more you restrict who feels comfortable using a street, the more you essentially privatize it in favor of one particular user.

      1. Well, it will become more “accessible” to the highly risk averse. Sycamore has bike and pedestrian traffic now. It has ample sidewalks, at least two stop signs have been added in recent years, and no record of pedestrian accidents that I know of. I wonder, how many people who are not using the road with its current 30 mph limit will in fact become pedestrians/bikers with a limit of 25?

         1. And that’s something worthy of study, I agree. Especially if this might be repeated in other neighborhoods. But it still doesn’t answer how this has anything to do with “privatizing.”

6. This is great news. 25mph is plenty fast for these streets.
   Not that posting any speed limit means much to some people.
   It’s the many drivers blowing through stop signs at 50+mph on Sycamore that I want to see pulled over.

Comments are closed.