My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 08/13/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1996
>
Agenda - Council - 08/13/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:34:43 PM
Creation date
9/24/2003 9:41:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
08/13/1996
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
601
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SPEED WATCH <br /> <br /> C A Z R.3 I <br /> ! <br /> IITOH, <br /> <br />The Neighborhood Speed Watch Program, <br />which borrows some of the Neighborhood <br />Crime Watch concepts, relies on neighborhood <br />participation to create awareness and thus <br />help control speeds in neighborhoods. A per- <br />sonal letter may be sent to local residents as- <br />king for their cooperation and personal visits <br />by neighborhood committee members may in- <br />clude an appeal for cooperation if a self con- <br />rained subdivision is involved. Signs may be <br />erected. Radar observations by transportation <br />personnel or neighborhood residents trained <br />in the use of a radar unit are then made. One <br />runs the unit and one records vehicle and <br />speed information. Speeders are sent letters <br />by the Traffic or Police Department pointing <br />out the inconsistent speeds relative to stand- <br />ards adopted by their friends and neighbors. <br />In many cases, the speeders turn out to be local <br />residents. When neighborhood residents run <br />the unit, they learn first hand about the prob- <br />lem or lack thereof. This technique could be a <br />part of a low cost initial phase attempt to slow <br />speeders. Later phases could involve physical <br />design or other changes if this technique fails <br />to produce lasting speed reductions. <br /> <br /> Effects <br /> <br />Volumes. Essenfially no change since traffic is <br />13cal. <br /> <br />Speed. In two Georgia subdivisions, 85th per~ <br />centile speeds were reduced from 45 to 35 mph <br />and the total number of vehicles exceeding 50 <br />mph was reduced from 56 to 13 vehicles daily. <br /> <br />Neighborhood Traffic Control <br /> <br />January 1994 <br /> <br />In others, the speed reductions were evidently <br />not significant. Speeds typically go down <br />during the watch, but may not remain down <br />later. Data is needed. <br /> <br />Traffic Noise, Air Quality and Energy Con- <br />sumption. Little or no effect. <br /> <br />Traffic Safety. Possibility of improved safety <br />through reduced speed. <br /> <br />Community Reaction. This program has been <br />perceived positively by the neighborhoods - <br />even in areas where significant speed reduc- <br />tions were not measurable. Residential speed <br />complaints virtually ceased in the Georgia <br />case. In many cases, the neighborhood resi- <br />dents may find that no significant problem <br />exists. <br /> <br /> Cost <br /> <br />This technique can typically be fairly low in <br />cost requiring a radar gun and some data <br />processing and training (staff time). <br /> <br />3-1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.