Calm down!
I'm going to need some help sorting this thing out.
On the surface, it seems to be a more fair-minded approach on how to deal with residential speeding, but, then again, something about it seems more than a tad muddled to me. That is, how exactly are we to determine whose cars belong to who? Is it merely because a car is going over 35 miles per hour that we determine they don't belong in that neighborhood (if so, that's incredibly faulty as I notice numerous residents of my neighborhood violating that law).
I suppose part of the concern I have with this right now is that this appears to be a hyper-local problem in that it affects specific neighborhoods with access to major areas of commerce in community (i.e. Normaltown, Five Points, etc.). It mean, you don't really hear of many folks cutting through High Ridge to get somewhere these days.
I make this point because if it's a select group of neighborhoods affected, we're using an inexact science to determine the payment guidelines and we're even having the discussion of who to foot the bill ... then part of me feels that the neighborhoods that are affected by this should be the ones who pay for these measures.
Listen, I'm very much a big-picture, common-good, we're-all-in-this-together kind of guy, but something about this doesn't feel quite right to me.
On the surface, it seems to be a more fair-minded approach on how to deal with residential speeding, but, then again, something about it seems more than a tad muddled to me. That is, how exactly are we to determine whose cars belong to who? Is it merely because a car is going over 35 miles per hour that we determine they don't belong in that neighborhood (if so, that's incredibly faulty as I notice numerous residents of my neighborhood violating that law).
I suppose part of the concern I have with this right now is that this appears to be a hyper-local problem in that it affects specific neighborhoods with access to major areas of commerce in community (i.e. Normaltown, Five Points, etc.). It mean, you don't really hear of many folks cutting through High Ridge to get somewhere these days.
I make this point because if it's a select group of neighborhoods affected, we're using an inexact science to determine the payment guidelines and we're even having the discussion of who to foot the bill ... then part of me feels that the neighborhoods that are affected by this should be the ones who pay for these measures.
Listen, I'm very much a big-picture, common-good, we're-all-in-this-together kind of guy, but something about this doesn't feel quite right to me.
posted by Jmac at 6:43 AM
12 Comments:
As I understand it (big caveat :-) ) the traffic guys have models (pretty accurate) of how many trips the average household of different socio-economic status etc makes per day. Let's say, for sake of argument, for a particular 'hood it's 10 per h'hold. So, if you have 20 houses on the street, that works out at 200 locally produced trips. If you do the traffic count and you find you've actually got 500 cars passing the counter per day, that tells you that you have 300 'non-local' trips.
That helps make it a little more clear for me. Thanks.
I'm still not completely sold on the idea though. If one particular neighborhood is concerned about safety, why should other neighborhoods have to foot the bill?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the addition of traffic calming measures stems from requests from specific neighborhoods (over time) and not a general initiative taken on by the local government (outside of now, which appears to be spurred by these actions). It would make sense to me to set up a program where those who wish to implement these traffic-calming measures can find a way to pay for them on their own.
The bigger picture that wasn't addressed in the article about this issue - speed bumps don't really work. Of course it all depends on the street, but the streets most likely to need them are long, straight and serve as a cut-through in someone's mind.
I can personally attest that the two speed "tables" on either side of my front yard (right on Cedar Creek Dr.) serve ONLY to launch speeding vehicles into the air. Or, (for the infinite number of landscape trailers hauling equipment) rattle us out of bed at 6:30 in the morning on Saturday with the musical sound of clanging metal. My immediate, daily personal experience/low-tech data collection methodolody tells me the expensive bumps have little influence on the folks that are REALLY hauling some ass. There are plenty of Cadillacs/Delta 88's that slow down considerably for them, but they are usually obeying the speed limit anyways.
That's not to say they don't have SOME calming influence - I can't imagine the dragstrip Cedar Creek Dr. would be without them - but they are not a magic bullet.
On top of that, they are the single most divisive issue in our neighborhood. For every call I get requesting the association "install" (ha!) more bumps in other parts of the neighborhood, there is a call from someone telling me they will MOVE if another speed bump is ever installed.
Speeding is a major problem - my dog/nieces/nephews are all required to play in the backyard, rather than the front. The real problem imho is that (according to the PD) the state will not allow law enforcement to run radar to control speeding within a "neighborhood". I have heard there is a movement to change this reg, but nothing has happened as of yet. According to my friends at ACCPD they would LOVE to sit and run radar on a side street in Cedar Creek, but they simply are not allowed. Now THAT would truly have an impact - far more than spending $100,000 and pissing off as many people as you please.
David Hamilton
The real problem imho is that (according to the PD) the state will not allow law enforcement to run radar to control speeding within a "neighborhood".
That is true, but nothing stops from ACCPD from having regular license checks which will have its own traffic calming effect. Not all enforcement activities have to be revenue enhancers.
You still have to be going more that 10 miles above the speed limit to make a radar case.
Besides, there are other ways to make speeding cases than radar-- the offense existing a half century before radar/laser was invented.
Besides hitting the speed thingies is kind of fun in a truck. YeeeHaw!!
I'm still not completely sold on the idea though. If one particular neighborhood is concerned about safety, why should other neighborhoods have to foot the bill?
It's sharing. You should be getting a warm fuzzy just from the thought.
People looking for the quick fix, instead of addressing the root problem, such as an inadequate (in numbers) police department.
Another long term problem is a lack of a comprehensive traffic management plan. Let's see, let's build a bazillion apartments on the edge of town, and then get all concerned when the kiddies start cutting through neighborhoods.
the real problem is that a great many drivers are just assholes and there will never be enough police to catch all the assholes because there will never be capital punishment for driving like an asshole so they will just keep coming back
my neighbors are among the worst offenders and many of them are not young and one of them drives an Olds 88
It's sharing. You should be getting a warm fuzzy just from the thought.
OK, well, there's a difference between saying 'let's enact legislation which affects us all and will produce dividends for the betterment of society' and 'let's enact legislation for some, funded by all, that makes it more frustrating to navigate our neighborhoods.'
It used to be the case that the ACC govt paid the whole amount and a neighborhood had to get in line (in other words, that all residents paid but some benefitted, though all had the opportunity to get in line). Then the money ran out, which is why they are talking about this hybrid approach.
The problem would be solved by:
1) people not driving like idiots
2) not designing streets that are long, straight and flat. Anytime you have to go and put in things like speed humps it is an indication that the road was poorly designed. Of course, back in the 50s they assumed it was your right to drive fast and everywhere in a car, but that's another issue.
Of course, back in the 50s they assumed it was your right to drive fast and everywhere in a car,
It's not?
I thought it was stuck in one of those amendments after the Fourteenth that nobody really knows what are.
Or isn't it covered under the "pusuit of happiness" one of those inalienable rights?
The old program was free to the 'hoods, but aimed to distribute a tiny amount of money out among an infinite number of petitioners. Then the commission had the idea of making neighborhoods pick up some of the tab, but there still wasn't adequate funding and it had the additional problem of more or less communicating "hey, you poor people? Screw you!"
I live adjacent to a neighborhood that got speed humps and in one that never reached consensus on speed humps and therefore doesn't have them. For a neighborhood where the speed has become unsafe, a speed hump is just about the only remedy available, and it's reasonably effective. I adore the speed humps on the adjacent street, because they made my section of my street adequately safe. Before that I lost a lot of mirrors and saw a lot of really appalling speeding.
The drawbacks:
1. For some problems speed humps are less adequate than traffic circles or chicanes and whatnot. But humps are cheaper and therefore that's what people tend to go for.
2. Speed humps affect federal roads funding.
3. Speed humps slow emergency vehicles.
4. Speed humps are noisy.
5. The effects of speed humps are variable over time. Therefore it might make more sense to use temporary speed bumps with other forms of behavioral modification. But again, cost.
And finally, the only meaningful remedies to speeding are behavioral modification and good design. Trying to remedy bad design in retrospect is had and expensive.
Thanks, jmac, for highlighting the neighborhood traffic management issue. The history of the ACC program, and some engineering details are important to keep in mind.
The program has always been written to assume a shared cost between a neighborhood and the general fund, based on the level of cut-through traffic. As one writer notes, this relies on accepted standards of measuring vehiclular trips from homes - standards which have been verified through data collection in Athens neighborhoods.
Invariably, in implementing the program, past commissions would point at the scourge of cut-through traffic in every neighborhood, no matter what the traffic engineers told them. This meant that all funds used were general fund dollars. The current commission has agreed to heed the reports of staff regarding the actual split of local v. cut-through traffic. If this approach doesn't come to pass, I recommend you park your junkers in front of their driveways. Y'know - immediate and appropriate consequences.
The 35mph threshhold is important because that is the point at which traffic calming devices (speedhumps, etc.) begin to slow traffic. The haul-ass folks are actually the folks more impacted, on average. Those speeding at "only" 30mph on a residential street tend not to slow down for a speedhump.
Nicki mentions chicanes, chokers, and some other options - all of which the Transportation and Public Works department has in their arsenal. It was an overwhelming preference of the citizen committee studying this issue that the whole toolbelt be brought to bear, not just the often-rightly-maligned speedhump. Furthermore, the new ACC traffic engineer Steve Decker is fanastic, and can offer neighborhoods other general advice. For example, speed may not be the issue for your 'hood so much as volume and lack of sidewalks.
As mentioned in Blake's article, we are going to continue to meet to work on more macro-level speed and safety policy issues, such as policing and enforcement. The "traffic calming device" program is appropriate in some cases, but is limited in its effectiveness.
So, alright - send your good ideas to me at kgirtz@yahoo.com
Best,
Kelly
It's been my experience that those who speed through residential neighborhoods also roll through the stop signs. Ticketing for failure to stop will be just as effective as ticketing speeders. If ACC really wants to spend the resources on community policing it will work.
As for paying a traffic engineer, you'd do better to do your own count. The engineers typically do exactly as you say -- they assume 10 trips per househould, and then extrapolate that every other car is cutting through. The problem is that the 10x rule of thumb sucks.
Students renting a house will generate more, probably far more, than 10 trips a day. A retired couple will likely generate fewer than 10 trips per day. And of course it depends on how walkable the neighborhood is.
I recommend you park your junkers in front of their driveways.
Can't do that. Can't even park them in your driveway or the quality of life police will give you a ticket for "inoperable vehicle".
Sec. 3-3-7. Parking near fire hydrants or driveways.
It shall be unlawful for any vehicle to be parked within ten feet of a fire hydrant or driveway.
(Ord. of 4-7-92, § 6)
Sec. 3-3-8. Parking on sidewalks or near driveways.
It shall be unlawful for any vehicle, or motorcycle or any other motorized vehicle, to be parked on the sidewalk or other public right-of-way in any space that is not a designated marked parking space nor shall any such vehicle be parked in front of any driveway so as to block access to the public portion thereof or within ten feet of such driveway.
(Ord. of 4-7-92, § 6)
Sec. 3-3-20. Parking for more than 48 hours in one place.
It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park the same continuously in one place for more than 48 hours on any public street, highway or right-of-way or other Athens-Clarke County-owned property.
I will comment that although I firmly believe that a highly visible and regular police presence is a much preferable way of enforcing traffic laws, the police don't particular like them because the local residents invariably become the "victims" of the crackdown, with attendant political consequences. As with many situations, the perceptions that the malefactors are "outsiders" may not be supported by the evidence. Better to put in a "neutral" deterrent that will trash the suspensions of the good and the bad with equal vigor.
Post a Comment
<< Home