Eyman's I-985 attacked for reducing incentive for cities to introduce red light cameras

Eyman's I-985 invites road tragedies

By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

DURING THE past decade, our state's less savvy citizens have seen voting for Tim Eyman's tax initiatives as a pain-free way of giving local government a poke in the eye.

The officials so often abused by the initiative kingpin -- Eyman talks endlessly of an unnamed "they" and "them" -- bend over backward to ease the impact and maintain pared-down essential services.

Initiative 985 carries more pain -- physical pain.

Vote in favor of the initiative and your kid may get smashed in the legs by fenders of a car running a red light, or your grandmother killed as she uses a crosswalk after getting off a bus.

Why? Initiative 985 erects a financial barrier that will prevent cities from installing or maintaining cameras at busy and dangerous intersections.

"Traffic cameras are an attempt to begin to level the playing field between powerful cars and human bodies out there. Eyman could give a rat's rear about that," said Andrea Okomski, whose son, Joe, suffered permanent injuries when hit by a car on North 85th Street.

Lori Koidal has become an activist for pedestrian rights since her mother was killed last year by a driver who ran a red light at a busy Kenmore intersection. The driver was not found criminally liable.

"It makes me mad to see something gain traction, and then not happen," Koidal added. "Something CAN work, and this takes it away.

"We're talking about holding people accountable for their actions. If you know there is a camera, you're going to be less likely to run a red light. You will be more likely to slow down."

Eyman, not surprisingly, takes a different view. Displaying the insight that marks him as a leader of bitter men, he used a Friday e-mail to blast traffic cameras as "a lucrative cash cow profit center."

The initiative would take away from cities all of the fines and penalties raised by traffic cameras. The money would instead be sent to a state decongestion fund. It would be used to time traffic lights rather than installing cameras to monitor traffic at sensitive intersections and around schools.

"I hate those cameras, but I believe in them. They make me be careful," King County Executive Ron Sims said in a Seattle CityClub debate with Eyman.

Sims draws on personal experience. He was hit by a car after school as a third-grader in Spokane.

We've seen a common pattern on previous Eyman initiatives. The Elway Poll, about two weeks out, shows a sharp decline in voter support. But time runs out on opponents.

Eyman squeaks through with about 51.12 percent of the vote. He loses in King County but carries rural areas by heavy margins. A guy who could strut sitting down, he then descends on Olympia and claims to be a tribune of the regular guy.

The traffic camera issue is making him squirm.

He tried the Big Brother gambit before CityClub, claiming there is "a little bit of ACLU in all of us." He has tried to demonize camera makers for contributing to the campaign against I-985.

How much is the anti-985 war chest? It totaled $186,000 as of Friday, compared with the $6.2 million raised by supporters and opponents of Initiative 1000, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide.

Above all, argues Eyman, "I-985 removes the profit motive for photo red light cameras and photo speeding cameras."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the consequences. The cameras become unaffordable to install or maintain.

Eyman has recently heard that message from both the Renton and Burien city councils. He was told in Renton that cameras have cut speeding around schools and freed up police officers to pursue criminals.

Will cities continue to install cameras if money from fines gets sent to Olympia? "We would not be able to afford them," Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said on a recent podcast.

The national growth of intersection accidents underscores a need to do exactly what Eyman's initiative would render fiscally impossible.

Drivers running red lights cause more than 100,000 crashes a year, killing nearly 1,000 people and injuring 90,000 others. According to the Federal Highway Administration, this has become a leading cause of fatal collisions in metropolitan areas.

"This should be viewed as an outrageous epidemic," Richard Retting, chief traffic engineer with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the Ladies Home Journal. "We're not talking about a rare illness that requires decades of billion-dollar research to prevent or cure. This is a situation where people are dying from something that's 100 percent preventable."

Okomski makes another telling point. We simply don't have enough police to make people be civil on the road, or to cover intersections prone to side-impact "T-bone" crashes.

Yet, I-985 is aimed at preventing the prevention. Eyman doesn't stand for tax relief. He is promoting road kill.

Negative impacts of speed bumps on safety and pollution

3/6/01 David Engwicht on Speed Humps
"... you’ve got traffic braking to go -- bump, bump -- over the speed bump and then speeding up between ..."

“Speed bumps aren’t the panacea that a lot of people think they are because …. somebody has to put up with the noise of people going over them outside their house and, interestingly enough, the people between the speed bumps have to put up with faster traffic. The traffic speeds up to make up the lost time from slowing down. Instead of an even pace in the street, you’ve got traffic braking to go -- bump, bump -- over the speed bump and then speeding up between (them)”.

Source: David Engwicht, best-selling international author on traffic calming, at “Mental Speed Bumps” lecture given in Vancouver, Washington on October 19, 2005. (Filmed by CVTV, who provided videotape.)
Engineering research backing up David Engwicht's observations
Example 1 - Intention

"When designed and installed properly, speed humps will reduce vehicle speeds to 15-20 mph at the hump and 25-30 mph between humps in a series."

Source: "A Study on Speed Humps" prepared by the Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University, Duane E. Smith, P.E. and Karen L. Giese, September 1997
Example 2 - Comparison of Speeds "On Humps" and "Between Humps"
Speed Hump Location Design Type Speed on Speed Humps Speed between Speed Humps
1 Av NE Seminole
29 MPH

36 MPH
Freemont Av N Watts
24 MPH

29 MPH

Source: Mid-Block Speed Control: Chicanes and Speed Humps, John C. Marek and Shauna Walgren, Seattle Transportation
Example 3a - Resulting Increase in Pollution

"Speed humps cause atmospheric pollution from the speeding up and slowing down of traffic between the humps (see TRL report No. 482 on this subject). For example, TRL reports a 59% increase in CO, about 50% increase in HC and about 25% in CO2 from petrol catalyst vehicles averaged over all types of traffic calming measures, with even higher numbers over more "severe" measures such as speed humps."

Source: The Objections to Speed Humps (Submission to the London Assembly)
Published by the Bromley Borough Roads Action Group (B.B.R.A.G.), October 2003
Example 3b - TRL Report 482 (2001)

TRL Report 482 / 2001 “The Impacts of Traffic Calming Measures on Vehicle Exhaust Emissions”, Boulter, P.G., Hickman, A.J., Latham, S., Layfield, R., Davison., P. (AEA Technology), Whiteman, P. (AEA Technology), 2001 - available from Transport Research Laboratory (£50.00)

Reviewed -

"For these newer vehicles some modes of operation, such as rapid accelerations (which may occur on some roads with traffic calming), can result in fuelling conditions which deviate from those required for the optimum control of pollutants. Any such deviation can result in a momentary emission rate that is an order of magnitude higher than the baseline rate."

Source: "Traffic calming pushes up emissions", Air Quality Management, Issue Nbr. 64, April 2001
Example 4-a - Noise at Speed Hump in Addition to the Noise from Braking and Accelerating

"Speed bumps increase noise levels 10 to 20 decibels when wheels hit the bump. This increase in noise can be bothersome in quiet residential neighborhoods."

Source: City of Livermore, California, (website, November 2005)
Example 4-b - Residents Complained about Increased Noise Level in Omaha Study

"In Omaha, Nebraska, ... residents complained about the speeding that still existed, as well as about vehicle damage and increased noise levels."

Source: "Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior", Herman F. Huang and Michael J. Cynecki, Transportation Research Record 1705, Paper No. 00-0443

Speed Trapped- death by speed hump

Speed trapped
3/6/00

Rise and fall: As Orange County prepares to spend $500,000 to add speed humps, a car moves slowly over one on Lake Price Drive (photo: Charity)
By Jeffrey C. Billman

It was my first ride in a helicopter, and I didn't even know it," says Peggy, a thin, gray-haired woman recalling the day she was airlifted from her east Orange County subdivision after neighbors found her unconscious in the street.

No one knows what happened to Peggy on May 24; the woman, who asked that her last name not be used, only remembers doing what she always does: taking an early-morning stroll around the block. Some neighbors think it was a hit-and-run; the fire-rescue report says it was a fall. Either way, an emergency response was required.

The official story is that Peggy's injuries precluded an ambulance ride. But her neighbors think it went down differently.

Peggy's subdivision, a modest collection of tract houses called Regency Park, abuts Lake Price Drive, a road that connects East Colonial Drive with North Tanner Road and is a commonly used cut-through. Along a half mile of Lake Price Drive, travelers encounter nine so-called speed humps -- which, the neighbors say, the paramedics didn't want to drive over with Peggy in back.

Orange and Seminole County Fire Rescue officials say that's not the case, that Peggy would have been airlifted no matter where she fell. (The two counties jointly operate the nearby rescue station that responded.) It is accepted, however, that speed humps do slow emergency vehicles, be it ambulances or fire trucks, and Regency Park residents fear those delays may end up costing lives. They point to a letter written last month by an Orange County Fire and Rescue captain that said an ambulance took a "possibly longer" route to avoid the humps.

What if the situation is life threatening? they ask.

The debate takes added importance with Orange County preparing to spend $500,000 during the next five years installing still more humps and other traffic-calming devices. Indeed, county officials say that among neighborhood associations, the humps are wildly popular.

Elsewhere around the country, however, such enthusiasm has been undermined by the realities. Neighborhood associations may like them, but almost everyone else hates them -- including many fire departments. Lawsuits and angry protests have followed.

In fact, the humps may be inherently illegal. And the most damning analysis suggests they may be responsible for the deaths of far more people than they will ever save.

Orange County jumped on the humps in 1994, joining a trend that began sweeping the country in the late 1980s. The Orange County Commission voted then to allow the placement of speed humps in residential areas. "Speed humps," according to the county's public-works department, "are used as an effective tool in relieving speeding problems found within a neighborhood."

Before humps can be installed -- a process that requires two-thirds of adjacent homeowners to agree to a one-time tax that offsets the $1,400-per-hump cost -- the road has to meet certain criteria. First, it must qualify as a "local street and/or collector road" that carries between 800 and 3,000 vehicles per day. Second, the problem of speeding traffic must be documented, with at least 85 percent of vehicles exceeding the maximum 30-mile-per-hour limit allowed on a humped road.

So far, nine neighborhoods have taken up the county's offer to install the humps. Many more are expected to follow suit when the county makes the $500,000 available in a 50-50 matching program. It's all according to demand, says county public works deputy director Mark Massaro.

But from what does that demand stem?

Common sense suggests that safety is the main concern. Yet Canada Safety Council (CSC) Traffic Safety and Training manager Raynald Marchand, who has fought speed humps in Canada, sees it differently: "As a general statement," he says, "the CSC has seen traffic-calming devices as a hidden way of sending traffic elsewhere. [It's] not a safety issue."

At least in one sense, Lake Price Drive no longer meets the county's criteria for the humps, which were approved by the county commission in the early 1990s to slow traffic brought about by new developments in the area. (The last of the humps were completed only last April.) The county's statistics show that as many as 4,000 vehicles now travel that road daily -- well above the 3,000-load limit.

Even so, Massaro says they're doing the job. Before the humps were installed, 85 percent of vehicles on Lake Price Drive were barreling through at 40 mph, on a street where the posted limit is 25 mph. The traffic since has slowed to slightly below 25 mph. As a result, he declares the humps "very successful."

In its limited capacity, Orange County's speed-hump program may indeed be successful. But as it expands, problems almost certainly will magnify. Indeed, many communities that installed humps have run into serious problems.

First, there's a legitimate concern that speed humps are illegal. Here's why: All traffic-control devices, such as stop signs and red lights, must be drawn from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices -- and speed humps are nowhere to be found therein.

In Sarasota, that gave ammunition to two residents who felt that the city's hump program was simply a pain in the ass. They sued. The city argued that the humps were traffic calming devices, not control devices; the significant legal distinction held that control devices give messages, while calming devices do not.

The circuit court disagreed, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. "How you classify [control or calming] depends on the purpose [of the devices]," says plaintiff's attorney Michael Hartenstine. "If the purpose is to control and influence traffic speed and volume, then it's traffic control."

An appeals court reversed the decision -- not because the circuit judge was wrong, the court said, but because the two residents could not prove they had the rightful standing to bring the lawsuit. (They didn't actually live on a street with humps.) What that means for future lawsuits is uncertain: Hartenstine says it leaves the door open for anyone directly affected by speed humps; the Sarasota city attorney's office says the decision probably will deny any lawsuits unless the plaintiff could show that he or she was denied due process -- in other words, if speed humps were installed without community input.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is another possible issue. Under the ADA, the disabled are ensured access to government "facilities" -- including public roads -- "safely, independently and without humiliation," says Emily Wilcox, an advocate for the disabled in Berkeley, Calif. Many disabled groups insist the humps are a barrier to that access.

Berkeley's speed-hump program in particular elicited much protest from the disabled community. "Those of us having problems with speed humps," says Wilcox, "have painful, degenerative disabilities." Riding in a vehicle as it travels over the humps, even at speeds below the posted limit, causes her long-lasting pain and injury, she says.

Rick Hall of Austin, Texas, is on the front line in the speed-hump fight. He's helped to set up an Internet network for about 15 anti-hump groups (www.io.com/~bumper/ada.htm). The humps, he says, block disabled people's access to roads, and that's illegal. "We want to see some reform," Hall says, "not an end to all traffic calming."

Reform may be inevitable. Already, a lawsuit filed by a disabled man in Bethesda, Md., alleges that city's speed humps blocked his access to his home. And in Berkeley, an internal city staff memo expressed concern that traffic calming did indeed violate the ADA. If that's deemed the case, Orange County's program could open up the county to the same sorts of challenges.

But the most immediate problem -- in terms of both litigation and public concern -- is the safety issue. Put simply: Does the slower traffic on humped streets save more lives than slowing ambulances and fire trucks will cost?

That's the issue over which fire-rescue departments across the country have butted heads with traffic engineers, many of whom do not see the slower response time as a major issue.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal studied the impact that humps had on emergency vehicles in Portland, Ore. "The bottom line -- when properly designed, they had minimal delay or effect," says American Public Works Association spokesman John MacMullen.

But what's minimal? The Journalarticle, published in August 1997, concluded that each hump delays traffic up to 9.2 seconds. Along the nine humps on Lake Price Drive in Orange County, that could mean a delay of up to 82.8 seconds -- almost a minute and a half, each way. If paramedics deem it unsafe to ferry a patient across the humps for whatever reason, there really is no alternate route they can take without going several minutes out of their way.

In Regency Park, that fact was made clear after a July 3 auto accident at Lake Price Drive and Tanner Road. In a follow-up letter to Syl Lafata, president of the homeowners association, acting Orange County Fire and Rescue Capt. Matt McGrew wrote that a rescue squad had to "slow to approximately 15 mph to negotiate safely through this area."

He continued: "I can say that the route taken to the hospital, although possibly longer, was determined specifically to avoid traveling back over those nine speed bumps. In summary, I can conclude that these speed bumps, although not completely hindering us from providing our service, do affect our response times and travel considerations when servicing this area."

In Berkeley, the fire department joined with disabled groups, and in 1995, the city imposed a moratorium on humps. But officially, Orange County Fire and Rescue doesn't see a problem, at least not one worth fighting over. "These traffic devices are going up all around Orange County," says district chief Tammy Wunderly. "It's something we're going to have to adapt to. Whether that's a danger to the situation, that's not our call. It's not something we're going to take a stand on."

Her concern might increase if she read the 259-page master's thesis recently written by Austin, Texas, Assistant Fire Chief Les Bunte. In "Traffic Calming Programs and Emergency Response: A Competition of Two Public Goods," the 27-year firefighting veteran makes a startling observation.

Using a detailed formula developed by Boulder, Colo., scientist Ray Bowman, Bunte determined that in Austin, at least 37 people would die because of slower emergency-response time for every one life saved by slower traffic. Since Bunte took into account only deaths from sudden cardiac arrest -- and not from delayed fire response or any other condition -- that number could be higher.

Furthermore, Bunte points out that most pedestrian deaths don't occur on residential streets. They occur near busy intersections, and many times involve drunk pedestrians. "Often the traffic danger within a neighborhood," Bunte writes, "is generally a perceived danger [Bunte's italics] by the residents, rather than an established one. Residents often convey an exaggerated depiction of the problem."

Why Speed Bumps dont make Children Safer

Speed Humps Study Contains Numerous Flaws

by Randal O'Toole and Kathleen Calongne

12 August 2006

A recent paper purporting to show that speed humps make residential streets safer for children actually shows nothing of the kind. In fact, the study's data can even be interpreted to mean that humps make streets more dangerous.

Speed humps are annoying and potentially dangerous to drivers and can cause deadly delays to emergency service vehicles. But an Oakland, California study claims to show that speed humps make streets 50 to 60 percent safer for children.

The study used a database showing when and where 1,600 speed humps were installed on Oakland streets between 1995 and 2000. Ideally, the researchers would have compared accident rates on those streets before the speed humps were installed with rates after -- but they did not. Or they could have compared accident rates on those streets with rates on streets that did not have speed humps -- but they did not, at least not directly.

Instead, the study used emergency room data to identify 100 accidents in which a child under 15 years was hit by a car in those years. Forty-nine of those accidents were on the same street and block on which the child resided and of those, six had speed humps.

As a "control," for each accident the study examined two "randomly selected" non-automobile related emergency room visits that took place on the same day as the auto accident involving a child living on a residential street of the same age and gender as the one in the auto accident. The only point of this complicated and error-prone procedure was to estimate what share of children lived on streets with speed humps, the supposed answer being about 24 percent.

If 24 percent of Oakland children live on streets with speed humps but only 14 percent of child-auto accidents took place on streets with speed humps, the authors conclude that this proves that streets with speed humps are safer.

In addition to the above 49 accidents, the authors found another 51 accidents in which children who were hit by cars lived on streets with speed humps. But these accidents did not take place on the streets the children lived on -- the streets with the speed humps -- but on other streets up to a quarter mile of the children's homes.

Curiously, the researchers found that having a speed hump in front of your home reduces your child's chances of being hit by a car a quarter mile away from your home by the same percentage as they reduce the chances of being hit in front of your home. The study does not say how a speed hump in front of your home protects your children when they are a quarter mile away. This strange finding should have signaled to the authors that something was wrong with their methods.

In fact, there are numerous problems with their methodology. First, about 85,000 children under the age of 15 live in Oakland, yet the authors base this study on just 49 accidents (100 counting the accidents on streets other than the streets on which the children live). The size of that sample is far too small to be reliable.

Second, the study uses a "control" group to find out the share of children that live on streets with speed humps. The study claims that the control group was "randomly selected," yet first the authors had to identify each child's age, sex, and residential location (because only children who lived on residential streets were considered). With such a small sample, their selection could easily have biased the result.

There are far more reliable methods of estimating what share of children live on streets with speed humps. One way would be to simply count the residential streets in Oakland and determine what share of those streets had humps, adjusting for the population density in each neighborhood. Another way of doing the study is to measure accidents on streets before and after installation of speed humps. A Portland study that used this method found that speed humps reduced accidents by only 5 percent, which the researchers said was too small to be statistically significant.

The problems with small samples can be seen in the statistical data reported in the Oakland paper. The paper says that children living on streets with speed humps are 40 percent as likely to be hit by cars on their street as children on streets without speed humps. But a table in the paper says that the "confidence interval" for this number ranges from 15 percent to 106 percent.

In statistical terms, this means the authors are 95-percent certain that streets with speed humps could be anywhere from 85 percent safer to 6 percent more dangerous than streets without speed humps. This broad confidence interval means there is no certainty at all, demonstrating that the sample size was too small.

To top it off, the paper relied on data showing when speed humps were installed on Oakland streets after 1995. Yet, in correspondence, the authors admit that an unknown number of Oakland streets -- at least 125 -- had speed humps installed before 1995. Since these were not in their database, any accidents on those streets would have been counted as accidents on streets without speed humps. This error could easily account for the differences, statistically insignificant though they may be, estimated by the paper. Nor, in fact, did the authors verify that there actually were speed humps on all the streets in their database.

Naturally, the authors made no attempt to look at the other side of the question, which is whether any problems were caused by speed humps delaying emergency service vehicles. How many houses burned more than they might have because of delays to fire crews? How many people, including children, may have died because of delays to paramedics? How many burglars got away because of delays to police?

In a city with 85,000 children, the authors could find only a few dozen pedestrian accidents over a six-year period involving children on their street of residence. Considering that other studies have shown that problems caused by delays to emergency service vehicles completely dwarf the benefits of speed humps, advocates of speed humps and other traffic delaying devices will need better research using more data addressing the full range of the impacts of these devices before anyone can conclude that speed humps are a good idea.

This article was co-authored by Randal O'Toole of the Thoreau Institute and Kathleen Calongne of the Independence Institute Center for the American Dream. Please feel free to forward or reprint the article with appropriate citation.

Speed Bumps Kill

This and That
The speed bump dilemma
By THOMAS MICHALSKI
Article published on Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005
I’m a safe driver. I drive slow in the right hand lane, and cruise the interstates below the posted speed limit.

I laugh at the morons who race from one traffic light to the next, only to wait until I catch up at a snail’s pace.

But I hate speed humps, and Pinellas County has its share of them.

I also dislike those traffic islands in the middle of streets constructed under the guise of accident prevention.

The increase of each on public roads is absurd and dangerous. Roads are for motor vehicles and drivers shouldn’t have to be subjected to such inconveniences.

The National Motorists Association said most fire and emergency rescue agencies oppose speed humps. Response time greater than four minutes increases the danger of heart attack and stroke victims.

The humps also cause discomfort and potential danger to victims in ambulances because the vehicles have stiffer suspensions, greater weight and are slowed dramatically by speed humps.

The road bulges are installed in series that turns seconds of delay into minutes because emergency vehicles are unable to regain cruising speed between the devices. Regular traffic congestion is sporadic whereas humps deliberately cause delays, slowing down emergency vehicles approximately 15 seconds per bump. And those seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

A study by the Austin, Texas, Fire Department said ambulances are slowed down dramatically by the humps. The American Lung Association points to increased risk of personal injury to bicyclists and motorcyclists.

No studies or evidence exists to support the value of these devices. Hump advocates admit that, even with a decrease of speed, accidents do not “fall to a statistically significant degree.” (”Traffic Calming, State-of-the-Art,” by Reid Ewing, for the Institute of Transportation Engineers and FHA.)

Humps often are promoted on the basis that they protect children. In truth it is unlikely humps prevent any deaths. Houston, Texas, has the most extensive speed hump program in the nation, yet all of the city’s speed humps together would save one life every 400-plus years!

Another study claims that humps boost air pollution. Federal officials terminated Portland Maine’s experiment with humps due to increased pollution, accidents and fuel consumption.

The bumps are designed to sidetrack traffic to other streets and residential areas, causing increased risks to children who live in these neighborhoods. Diverted traffic means more travel time and further risks of accidents. Installing humps along residential roadways can only increase mid-block accidents where humps exist.

Then there is the increase in auto repairs. Vehicle damage occurs when drivers fail to see the hump and do not respond in time. One Pinellas County strip mall has a hump so high that even creeping over it causes scraping sounds. Dubbed “Mt. Pinellas,” motorists simply bypass that particular entrance or drive around the hump. It is now painted a bright yellow because so many cars have been damaged.

Then there are the traffic islands that appear to be accidents waiting to happen. They are located in the middle of roads. Along with them are so-called “soft” humps that have become skateboard and bicycle acrobatic courses for local kids.

So much for child safety.

Lest we forget the series of islands in one Pinellas County city. They are located in the middle of this long road. This is largely an industrial area and some of these obstacles remain unlit at night! I can’t imagine what employees from those factories and others go through at quitting time? The bottom line is that humps deprive taxpayers of rightful unimpeded access to streets they helped pay for. HUD (the Department of Housing and Urban Development) found using gates to close public streets discriminatory and even required one city to stop using them. Any way you look at it, humps are a major nuisance and are dangerous. It also leaves homeowners who sign petitions to have them installed open to lawsuits.

I, like many residents, find the speed humps, islands and other so-called traffic calmers totally unacceptable.

Until next time...

Thomas Michalski is the staff writer for Pinellas Park Beacon

Problems with speed bumps and other traffic calming devices

Boulder, CO

January, 2003

Traffic calming devices, such as speed humps and traffic circles are spreading to communities across the United States, without regard to their risks. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has avoided the examination of the problems associated with intentionally imposing vertical and horizontal deflection on vehicles and vehicle passengers, in order to encourage the proliferation of devices on city streets.

Deflection devices built to slow passenger vehicles, create even greater delays to emergency response vehicles. The longer wheel-base, stiff suspension, high vehicle weight, as well as the sensitive equipment and injured victims transported by these vehicles, require drivers to slow almost to a stop to negotiate the devices safely.

An unethical attempt has been made to silence the objections of rescue personnel to delays to emergency response by deflection devices. Fire chiefs, as city appointees, fear professional retribution and often will not voice concern until the level of risk becomes intolerable. Emergency calls are not the rare events some members of transportation and city staff would like to believe. The City of Houston, Texas for example, responds to an average of 150,000 emergency medical calls and 100,000 fire calls per year. There is an average of 250,000 deaths from sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) alone each year in the United States. American Heart Association (AHA) statistics indicate that 90% of these incidents occur outside of the hospital environment. By comparison, there are approximately 5,000 pedestrian deaths per year in the United States. Few of these occur on local neighborhood streets. A ten-year study of pedestrian deaths by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1982 - 1992 found 35% of pedestrian victims were intoxicated. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statistics, Safety Facts 2000, found similar results with intoxication on the part of 31% of pedestrian victims. AHA statistics for SCA, show survivability is directly related to the response times of cities. For example, an AHA study in 1996 showed that Seattle with a response time of less than 7 minutes saved 30% of its SCA victims. New York, with an average response time of 12 minutes saved only 2%.

While delay from individual devices is sometimes measured, the cumulative effect of series of devices is often ignored. Series of devices turn seconds of delay into minutes, as vehicles fail to regain cruising speed between the devices. Calming devices impose permanent, 24-hour delays to emergency response, unlike traffic congestion which occurs periodically. A study conducted by the fire department of Austin, Texas, 1997, showed an increase in the travel time of ambulances of up to 100% transporting victims.

Members of city councils and transportation divisions often portray delay to emergency response by calming devices as simply a tradeoff for increased safety from speeding cars. They avoid making the analysis which shows which risk is greater. Ronald Bowman, a scientist in Boulder, Colorado developed an analysis to compare these risks. The results show that even minor delay to emergency response by calming devices imposes far greater risk on the community than vehicles, speeding or not. The result of Bowman’s analysis, showed a risk factor of 85 - 1 from an additional one minute of delay (predicted to result from the installation of all the devices proposed for the City of Boulder at the time) before one life might be saved by the devices -- if it can be shown that the devices do save lives. Bowman’s analysis, based on the curve of survivability for victims of cardiac arrest and severe trauma (AHA) has been verified by a professional mathematician and can be viewed online at :

http://members.aol.com/raybowman/risk97/eval1.html

The Bowman analysis was applied to the City of Austin, Texas by Assistant Fire Chief, Les Bunte, with similar results. The report can be viewed online at: http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/texts/tfc_calm.pdf

The results of these analyses show that deflection devices are a tradeoff of the perception of increased safety from speeding vehicles for the real risk to citizen survivability from delay to emergency response. While the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, 1997, states humps should never be placed on emergency response routes, humps and physical devices of all kinds have been installed on critical emergency response routes in cities where these projects exist. The proliferation of devices has resulted in temporary or permanent moratoriums on devices in cities such as Berkeley California, Boulder Colorado, Portland Maine and Portland Oregon.

People with disabilities complain of lasting pain and injury caused by traveling over deflection devices in vehicles. Significant testimony about the physical and psychological barrier deflection devices make to access to public rights-of-way has been given to the U.S. Access Board in Washington DC. A web site addressing the problems of the disabled with deflection devices such as speed humps, speed tables and raised crosswalks can be found at: http:www.digitalthreads.com/rada.

Calming devices have been used to divide communities along racial and socioeconomic lines. The U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD) identified gates implemented as part of a traffic calming project in Houston, Texas as discriminatory, ordering them removed. Gates were replaced with speed humps to create a similar, though less obvious, barrier between neighborhoods.

While calming devices are built on the premise they will reduce accidents, a comprehensive study commissioned by the ITE and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on traffic calming projects in the United States concludes:

“Traffic calming in the U.S. is largely restricted to low volume residential streets. Collisions occur infrequently on such streets to begin with, and any systematic change in collision rates tends to get lost in the random variation from year to year. This limits our confidence in drawing inferences about safety impacts of traffic calming.

(Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, 1999, P. 123)

The USDOT defines traffic calming devices as geometric design features of the roadway, rather than traffic control devices. The USDOT recommends standards for the design and warrants for the use of devices that are approved traffic control devices in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The definition of traffic calming devices as geometric design features of the road has allowed devices to proliferate on city streets as a decision of local governments.

An increase in accidents has occurred after some installations. Experimental speed humps placed on a street at a school in Portland, Maine registered an increase in accidents of 35%. Accidents increased 100% after the installation of an experimental traffic circle in Boulder, Colorado. However, the circle in Boulder and the humps in Portland remain on the street today.

People across the United States are opposing the installation of deflection devices on city streets that damage vehicles, injure vehicle passengers, increase pollution and gas consumption and delay emergency response. I have researched traffic calming projects since 1996, and have compiled my research into a 400-page report on the “Problems Associated with Traffic Calming Devices.” I offer the report to all interested individuals at my cost. The following is a summary of some of the issues addressed in my report.

SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAFFIC CALMING

DEVICES IN THE UNITED STATES

By Kathleen Calongne

Boulder, CO

January 2003

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONCERNS -- Delay to emergency response vehicles by traffic calming devices has resulted in moratoriums as well as removal of devices in cities around the country. Fire Departments warn of the increased risk caused by the proliferation of devices once a calming project has begun. A video taped discussion by the Fire Department of Portland, OR states the department was denied participation in the implementation of Portland's calming project, and in fact was prevented by its Transportation Division from voicing concerns publicly. An analysis by Ronald Bowman of Boulder, CO shows that communities are at far greater risk from delayed emergency response by calming devices than from vehicles. The analysis, verified by a professional mathematician, can be viewed online at:

http://members.aol.com/raybowman/risk97/eval1.htm

The Bowman analysis was applied to the City of Austin, TX by Assistant Fire Chief, Les Bunte with similar results. The Bunte report can be viewed online at:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/texts/tfc_calm.pdf

Delay caused by humps on a street in Gaithersberg, MD may have contributed to the death of a child in a burning home. A firefighter descended into the basement of the home to rescue a child when "flashover" occurred, forcing his exit from the building. A resident of Houston, TX is brain dead after paramedics, unable to open a gate installed as part of calming project, were forced to take a longer route to the victim’s home. Gates on some Houston streets have been ordered open because of concerns for emergency response. So many humps were installed in one direction on a street leading from a Houston fire station that fire trucks only turn the opposite direction out of the station, regardless of the location of the call.

There are documented injuries of firefighters who have hit the roofs of their cabs, encountering speed humps unexpectedly. Some injuries have placed firefighters on temporary or permanent disability.

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS -- Residents in Houston filed a complaint with HUD that gates installed as part of a calming project were used to segregate communities along racial and socioeconomic lines. HUD found the City of Houston in violation of the civil rights of its residents, ordering the gates removed. The gates were replaced with humps to effectively, though less overtly, discourage access to the neighborhoods.

VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT -- Funds allocated for a traffic calming experiment by the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program to the City of Portland, ME were rescinded when it was shown that the project of humps increased emissions by 48% without taking into consideration increased emissions from braking and acceleration required to negotiate the devices. The State of Maine has been ordered under the federal Clean Air Act to show evidence of compliance in reducing pollutants. Section 113, "Federal Enforcement,” states fines including imprisonment will be levied against entities responsible for knowingly increasing the release of pollutants into the air in cities on federal notice to improve air quality. The experiment has not been removed.

An Austrian study, in 1994, using a mobile exhaust fume measuring-device registered an increase in vehicle emissions of ten times on streets with speed humps.

The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), a research agency of the Department ofTransportation in the United Kingdom, conducted emissions tests in 1997 on streets with road humps and found the following results as reported in TRL Report 307:

“Schemes with a 75 metre hump spacing . . . showed increases in CO and HC of around 70 80% and 70 - 100% respectively, and an increase in CO2 of around 50-60%. Nox emissions were predicted to be about 0-20% lower after calming.”

To calculate the possible effect of smoother driving after the installation of humps (without braking and acceleration) the TRL measured the change in emissions associated with moving from a constant speed of 30 mph to a constant speed of 20 mph and found the following results:

CO and HC increased by 40 - 80%, CO2 by 30 - 40% and NOx by 20 - 30 %.

A more recent study by the TRL, Report 482 in 2001, registered increases in all emission pollutants after traffic calming:

For petrol catalyst vehicles: CO 59%, HC 54%, NO2, 8%, CO2 26%

The study states that speed humps created the largest increase in pollutants of all calming devices tested.

VIOLATION OF THE ADA -- A moratorium on speed humps is presently in effect in Berkeley, CA because of emergency response concerns and because of complaints from the disabled community. Persons with some disabilities state the lasting pain and injury caused by deflection devices makes them virtual barriers to accessibility. The Department of Justice regulations for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) define “facility” to include “roads”. Title II states an alteration to a facility must make the facility accessible and usable to the maximum extent feasible.

The report, Building a True Community, 2001 by the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee of the U.S. Access Board in Washington D.C, acknowledges significant testimony from people with a variety of disabilities that vertical and horizontal deflection devices are not only painful, but worsen existing conditions while traveling by vehicle. The U.S. Access Board publication, Accessible Rights of Way: sidewalks, street crossings, other pedestrian facilities, 1999, states that drivers with disabilities report the jarring from crossing speed humps even at low speeds can be painful and dangerous, resulting in the devices being “a barrier to roadway use.” Both publications suggest, in the absence of research, that entities consider other traffic calming measures. A lawsuit was filed against the City of Bethesda, MD by a disabled resident for placing speed humps on streets providing access to his home. Speed humps were removed from streets in San Diego County, CA because of problems experienced by disabled residents. A website addressing the concerns of the disabled with deflection devices can be found at:

http://www.digitalthreads.com/rada.

LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS -- In August 1998, Florida Judge Robert Bennet ruled in favor of two residents of the City of Sarasota who filed suit against the city for placing devices on city streets that are not approved traffic control devices in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). States have adopted the MUTCD as a guide for the recommended placement and design of devices that are approved traffic control devices. Compliance with warrants for the devices provides protection from liability. The decision was overturned on appeal, on the basis that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, not on the merits of the ruling.

The legal departments of some cities have reasoned the absence of standards and warrants for the design and use of traffic calming devices from the MUTCD indicates lack of authorization for cities to build the devices on streets.

Calming devices are typically marked with the yellow diamond shaped sign, recommended in the MUTCD to warn drivers of street hazards. Cities are required to keep streets free of hazards. Drivers can injure themselves and their vehicles driving over the devices at posted speed limits. Devices are typically designed to lower speeds below posted speed limits. The legal department of Sunnyvale CA expressed concern cities could be liable not only for injury caused by a device, but for injury and property damage resulting from actions taken by drivers because of a device, such as swerving around them. Legal departments express concern cities could be liable for personal injury and property loss wherein response to an emergency situation was delayed by calming devices.

CONFLICT -- It has been said that "traffic calming" has become "people calming.” Even pro-calming data acknowledges the volatility of the debate. Diversion of traffic to other streets always accompanies an installation of devices. Residents who must travel over the devices are often irate about the discomfort of the devices, the increased vehicle noise from loads shifting over devices and the visual pollution of the signs and pavement markings needed to warn drivers of devices. Division and angst often remain in the neighborhood, long after an installation is complete.

Kathleen Calongne

CalongneK@aol.com

RESOURCES

ARTICLES

Reuben Castenada and Steven Gray, “Maryland Boy, 13, Dies in Fire at Friend’s Sleepover,” THE WASHINGTON POST, June 15, 1998 (Firefighter Stottlemeyer descends into basement to rescue child as flashover occurs forcing his exit from the home.)

Jen Chaney, “Fatal fire renews speed hump debate,” GAITHERSBERG GAZETTE, July 8, 1998 (Impact of delay caused by humps on street on rescue of child.)

Dwight Daniels, “Encinitas protesters’ parked vehicles hinder laying of speed bumps,” THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, Aug. 13, 1998

Editorial, “Meeting air standards Maine’s obligation too,” PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, October 17, 1997 (Ruling of EPA)

Editorial, “Street Fights,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, July 12, 1994 (Closures foster exclusivity rather than community.)

Dan Feldstein, “Brown has 911 gate removed,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, August 18, 1998 (“Closure denies emergency access.”)

Dan Feldstein, “Subdivision struggles with great barrier rift,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, February 22, 1999

Kristen Green,“It’s neighbor vs. neighbor over Santee speed bumps,” THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, March 7, 2000

Kristen Green, “Disabled woman wins fight to remove speed bumps on her street,” THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, May 12, 2000

Martin Kuntscher, “Speed bumps cause ten times more air pollution,” ALLIANCE INTERNATIONALE DE TOURISME, FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L’AUTOMOBILE, September 6, 1994

Lisa Marshall, “Circles called hazards,” THE DAILY CAMERA, Boulder CO, December 12, 1996

Paul Marston, “Humps increase exhaust fumes,” UK NEWS, ELECTRONIC TELEGRAPH, January 14, 1998

Nichols, “Houston hits the brakes on speed-humps,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, (“Deterrent for drivers raises worries about police, fire response.”) August 1, 1999

Amy Reinholds, “Whittier attempts mediation …Neighbors square off on traffic issue” THE DAILY CAMERA, Boulder CO, January 21, 1997

Amy Reinholds, “Slip-sliding away at Pine St. traffic circle”, THE COLORADO DAILY, Boulder, CO, November 20, 1996

Judith Scherr, “Berkeley’s bumpy battle,” BERKELEY DAILY PLANET, March 27, 2000 (Berkeley Commission on Disability takes stand against humps.)

Mark Shanahan, “Federal government pulls funds from traffic-slowing experiment,” PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, August 18, 1998

Matt Schwartz, “HUD labels Dian Street gate discriminatory, asks removal,” THE HOUSTON
CHRONICLE, October 15, 1998


Joanne B. Walker, “Speed bumps, tables meet legal obstacle,” ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, August 1998 (Judge Bennett rules in favor of two Florida residents who filed suit against city for placing devices on streets used for traffic control which are not approved traffic control devices in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.)

John Williams, “Street Warfare” (Intersection sealing brings racism calls.) THE HOUSTON
CHRONICLE, July 10, 1994


John Williams, “Probe of bias and street closings looks at use of federal money,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, December 16, 1994

REPORTS / PAPERS

Accessible Rights-of-Way: Sidewalks, street crossings, other pedestrian facilities, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, U.S. Access Board, November 1999.

“All Vehicle VOC and NOX Emission Factors by Speed, Summer and Winter,” graph provided by Ron Severence, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 1997

An Analysis of Leadership, Politics and Ethics in the Stevens Avenue Traffic Calming Project, Part III, Ethics in the Stevens Avenue Project” by Scott Landry, Scot Mattox, Sara & Celeste Vigor, May 14, 1998 (Graduate paper for Muskie Institute at University of Maine Law School)

Boulder Fire Department Master Plan, Kevin Klein for City of Boulder CO, 1996

Building a True Community Final Report, Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee, U.S. Access Board, January 10, 2001

Deaths Expected from Delayed Emergency Response Due to Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation, Ronald R. Bowman, April 3, 1997

An Evaluation of the Speed Hump Program in the City of Berkeley, October 1997 (Damage to vehicles, impact on ambulance and fire services and people with disabilities.)

Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997

The Impacts of Traffic Calming Measures on Vehicle Exhaust Emissions, United Kingdom,Transport Research Laboratory Report 482, PG Boulter, AJ Hickman

“Motor-Vehicle-Related Deaths Involving Intoxicated Pedestrians” - United States, 1982—1992,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 43 / No. 14

911 Emergency Gate Review, Fire Chief Les Tyra, City of Houston Fire Department, November 17, 1998

Possible Neighborhood Traffic Calming Methods, Report to city council of Sunnyvale, CA, February 4, 1997 (Potential liability.)

Speed Hump/UC Plan Presentation Outline, draft report, Susan Sanderson, Transportation Planner, City of Berkeley, (Emergency response concerns from proliferation of speed humps. Humps not the tool felt they were.) 1995.

Sudden Cardiac Arrest, The American Heart Association, 1996

A Survey of Traffic Calming Practices in the United States, Institute of Urban and Regional Development by Asha Weinstein and Elizabeth Deakin, University of California at Berkeley, March 1998, (Conflict in neighborhoods.)

Stevens Avenue Traffic Calming Project, DeLuca-Hoffman Associates Inc., May 27, 1998, Portland, Maine (Increased accidents and pollution from traffic calming project.)

Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, ITE/FHWA, 1999

Traffic Calming and vehicle emissions: A literature review, Transport Research Laboratory Report 307, United Kingdom, P. G. Boulter and D. C. Webster, 1997

FEDERAL DOCUMENTS

Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, State and Local Government, Justice regulations, 28 CFR, 35.151, “New construction and alterations.”

Clean Air Act, EPA, Title 1, Part A, Air Quality and Emission Limits, Sec. 113 Federal Limits Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition, USDOT/FHWA, 2000 Traffic Safety Facts 2000, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USDOT

TIME TRIALS

“An Analysis of Speed Hump Effects on Response Times,” City of Austin, TX Fire Department, January 20, 1999

“The Effects of Speed Humps and Traffic Circles on Responding Fire-Rescue Apparatus in Montgomery County, Maryland,” Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Commission, August 1997

The Influence of Traffic Calming Devices on Fire Vehicle Travel Times,” Portland Bureau of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Service, January 1996

from Nels Tahti, Administrative Analyst, City of Roseville, CA Fire Department (Time trials on streets with series of speed humps), June 4, 1991

LETTERS

Letter from Earl Noe, “I have disabled your car … because you have so little regard for laws,” THE BOULDER PLANET, October 9 - 15, 1996 (Opponent of devices has tires slashed.)

Letter from Karen Craig, Chair, Commission on Disability, Berkeley CA to Berkeley Mayor and City Council, November 10, 1998 (Problems of the disabled with vertical deflection devices.)

Letter from Special Transit of Boulder, CO to Boulder City Council, April 3, 1997 (Problems of disabled riders with vertical and horizontal deflection devices.)

Letter from Steven Beningo, Division Transportation Planner, USDOT, to Commissioner John Melrose, Maine DOT, August 13, 1998, (Rescinds funds for Portland’s traffic calming project because of increased emissions.)

LEGAL DOCUMENTS

Affidavit of Settlement for Permanent Disability for fire fighter, George Gosbee, Montgomery County, MD, 1998 (Settlement of $ 3,000 per month for life for injury sustained when hit speed hump traveling to scene of emergency.)

’s Brief in, Slager v. Duncan and Montgomery County MD to U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (Unpublished opinion, sets no precedent by rules of the court.)

Final Judgment, Twelfth Circuit Court of the State of Florida, June 29, 1998 (Judge Robert B. Bennet rules in favor of Windom and Hartenstine of Sarasota, FL)

Opinion of Attorney General, State of Maryland, No. 86-021, April 2, 1986 (Potential liability.)

Opinion of Thomas R. Powell, Senior Assistant City Attorney, The City of Wichita, KS April 1, 1986 (Potential liability.)

OTHER

Housing Discrimination Complaint, filed by Calvin Hummer, President, Meadow Walk Town Home Association, Houston TX, May 28, 1997

“The Other Pine Intersections,” Ronald Bowman, 1996 (Graph showing increase in accidents at intersections with traffic circles on Pine St., Boulder CO.)

Application for CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) funds from City of Portland, July 1994. (City agrees to remove temporary measures if CMAQ determines emissions are not lowered by project.)

VIDEO

“Traffic Calming Devices,” 1996, Portland Bureau of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services, 55 SW Ash St., Portland, OR 97204

Holder 5

for labels